Appeal No. 2001-1198 Page 3
Application No. 09/233,899
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chow in view of Edwards.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed January 2, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12,
filed November 6, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed
March 1, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007