Appeal No. 2001-1541 Page 3
Application No. 09/094,297
§ 103 as obvious over Dierker.
Claims 1 to 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kull in view of Dierker or Codina.
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. 17,
mailed November 6, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16,
filed September 25, 1999) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed
December 26, 2000) 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007