Appeal No. 2001-1702
Application 09/186,429
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 through 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Borseth in view of Berne and Carlsen.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Borseth in view of
Berne and Carlsen as applied above, and further in view of
Pangalila.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement
of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those rejec-
tions, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 7,
mailed March 17, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed November 6, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed
September 21, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
January 3, 2000) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007