Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 3
Application No. 09/314,267
Claims 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bobek in view of Shih.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed November 7, 2000) and the answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed May 22, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15, filed March 22, 2001) and reply brief (Paper
No. 17, filed May 25, 2001) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims,2 to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
2 We note that claims 2, 12 and 17 appear to recite identical subject matter. We direct the
appellant's and the examiner's attention to 37 CFR § 1.75(b) and MPEP § 706.03(k) which discuss the
handling of duplicate claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007