Appeal No. 2001-0308 Page 3
Application No. 09/188,701
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant
regards as the invention.
(2) Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Foshee.
(3) Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sloan.
(4) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Frazier.
(5) Claims 1-3 and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wilner.
(6) Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wingert.
(7) Claims 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sloan.
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. 11) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 10 and 12) 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007