Appeal 2007-1983
Application 09/800,366
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Thiede US 5,129,595 Jul. 14, 1992
Duvall US 5,258,619 Nov. 2, 1993
Wood ‘419 US 5,420,419 May 30, 1995
Wood ‘149 US 5,675,149 Oct. 7, 1997
Appellant’s admitted prior art on page 6 of the Specification (APA).
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9-17, 20, and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Wood ‘149 and Wood ‘419
(incorporated by reference).
2. Claims 3-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, and APA.
3. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, APA, and Thiede.
4. Claims 8, 21, 27, 29, and 33-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, and Duvall.
5. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, and Thiede.
6. Claims 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wood ‘149, Wood ‘419, Duvall, and Thiede.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Supplemental Brief filed Feb. 9,
2006 which replaced all previously-filed Briefs (Br. 1). We also refer to the
most recent Examiner’s Answer filed Mar. 16, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013