Appeal No. 2001-0378 Page 3
Application No. 08/873,876
Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 11 and 15 to 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Pendergast.
Claims 4 to 6 and 12 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pendergast.
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. 28,
mailed June 23, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 27,
filed May 19, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed
August 28, 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 reference, to the declaration
under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Steven Robbins (Paper No. 26, filed
May 19, 2000) and to the respective positions articulated by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007