Appeal No. 2005-2016 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/682,988
The Rejections
Claims 1-10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Fukatsu.
Claims 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Fukatsu in view of Farmer.
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 August 12, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed June 3, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 18, 2004)
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. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Independent claims 1, 17 and 18 read as follows:
1. A computer method of restricted substance management
and recycling in a vehicle manufacturing environment, said
method comprising the steps of:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007