Appeal No. 2005-0966 3
Application No. 09/897,317
Claims 2 through 5 and 14 additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Stevens.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and appellant regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed November 4, 2003) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant’s brief (filed August 14, 2003) and reply brief (filed January 12, 2004) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art Stevens reference, and to
the respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking at page 3 of the answer, we note that the examiner has indicated that
appellant has not contested the rejection of claims 1 through 6, 13, 14 and 16 based on
1There are no prior art rejections of claims 6, 13 and 16. In the advisory action mailed April 25,
2003, the examiner indicates that claims 6, 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
and upon filing of a proper terminal disclaimer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007