Appeal No. 1999-2256 Page 4
Application No. 08/686,477
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Mager in view of Loftis. Claim 3 stands rejected
under § 103 as obvious over Mager in view of Loftis further in
view of Carr. Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Richardson. Rather than reiterate
the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer
the reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6 and 9-24. Accordingly,
we reverse. We consider the obviousness of the following
logical groups of claims:
• claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 21
• claims 4, 5, 6, 10
• claims 11-20
• claims 22-24.
We begin with the first group of claims.
I. Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, and 21
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007