Appeal No. 2005-1539 3
Application No. 09/799,275
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Latour in view of Stanek.
Claims 8, 9, 16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Latour in view of Barker.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Latour in view of Barker as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gremillion.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Latour in view of Gremillion.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the
examiner regarding the above-noted rejections, we refer to the answer (mailed July 13,
2004) for a complete exposition of the examiner’s position, and to appellants’ brief (filed
April 5, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007