Appeal No. 2002-0911 Page 4
Application No. 09/272,115
(5) Claims 5, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Becker.
(6) Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Newell.
(7) Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Andersson.
(8) Claims 5, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morrow.
(9) Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007