Appeal No. 2000-2175 Page 4
Application No. 09/268,925
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Meyer.
3. Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ono.
4. Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Botsolas.
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 and the
answer for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 7, filed April 3,
2000) 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
2(...continued)
rejection we will treat claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, and 15 as being
rejected under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007