Appeal No. 2000-1576
Application 09/169,179
clearly anticipated by Bechtoldt.
Claims 1, 2 through 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ayres.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ayres in view of Bechtoldt.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ayres.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed March 13, 2000) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections , and to appellant’s brief (Paper1
1 We observe that the copy of the examiner’s answer in the
file of this application is missing page 3. However, since it
appears that the missing information does not go to the merits
of rejections before us on appeal, we have merely noted this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007