Appeal No. 2000-1667 Page 4
Application No. 09/071,305
Claims 18, 20, 25 through 27, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Henthorn in view of
Bach.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 5, mailed March 9, 1999), the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed,
October 19, 1999) and the supplemental answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed, February 4, 2000) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 10, filed, September 13, 1999) 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
1The examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 25
through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see Paper No. 13) in view of
an amendment (Paper No. 12) filed December 6, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007