Appeal No. 2002-0063 Page 3
Application No. 09/324,825
Claims 21 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Redikultsev in view of Strehler and Morey.
Claims 21 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Charm in view of Strehler and Morey.
Claims 21 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Barnebey in view of Strehler and Morey.
Claims 21 to 27 or 21 to 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the prior art as applied to claims 21 to 27 or 21 to 34 above, and
further in view of Williams, Imig, Tyler, Richard or Vieth.
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 April 11, 2000) and the answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
May 18, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed February 1, 2001) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007