Appeal No. 2000-1682 Page 3
Application No. 08/845,503
Claims 1 through 5, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gross.2
Claims 6-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Ganderton, Gross or alternatively Gerstel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 8) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 7) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007