Appeal No. 2006-1282 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/361,899
Lee 5,525,059 June 11, 1996
Shank 1,300,495 Apr. 15, 1919
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 11 to 15 and 17 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lee.
Claims 1 to 6 and 8 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lee.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee
in view of Shank.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed October 19, 2005) and the final rejection (mailed March 9, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed August
5, 2005) and reply brief (filed December 16, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007