Appeal No. 2001-2112
Application No. 09/327,922
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber in view of Powlus as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Hill.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huber in view of Powlus as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Wieber.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's specific comments
regarding the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
11, mailed March 27, 2001) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed
February 7, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed May 15,
2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007