Appeal No. 2005-2108 Page 3
Application No. 10/360,982
Claims 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Curnutt in view of Ivers.1
Claims 10 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Curnutt in view of Ivers and Neff.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed February 23, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed December 20, 2004) and reply brief (filed April 18,
2005) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
1The inclusion of claims 10 to 12 in this ground of rejection was inadvertent (see
answer, p. 10).
2The omission of Neff in the statement of this rejection was inadvertent (see
answer, p. 10).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007