Appeal No. 2000-0606
Application No. 08/755,435
(1) Claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Downham.
(2) Claims 5-9 and 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Downham.
(3) Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Downham in view of
Winter.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 11) and the
final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 7 and 12) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
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.
We note, at the outset, that appellants' brief (page 6)
groups the claims on appeal as follows: Group I (claim 1);
Group II (claims 2, 3, 11 and 12); Group III (claims 4 and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007