Appeal No. 2001-0250 Page 5
Application No. 08/283,074
unpatentable over claims 16 and 12, respectively, of
Fredberg. Claims 1, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 39, 67,3
89, and 91 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Seybert. Claims 11, 22, and 90 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Seybert. Claims 2-4, 6,
17, and 81-83 stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over
Seybert in view of Schroeder. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejections by the examiner. Furthermore, we
duly considered the arguments and evidence of the appellants
and examiner. After considering the record, we are persuaded
3Although the examiner provisionally rejected these
claims over claims 18 and 13 of the '907 Application,
(Examiner's Answer at 4), the issuance thereof as the Fredberg
patent converted the provisional rejection into a non-
provisional rejection. Furthermore, claims 18 and 13 of the
'907 Application were renumbered as claims 16 and 12 of
Fredberg.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007