Appeal No. 2002-1645 Page 3
Application No. 09/281,553
Claims 11, 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Engelhart in view of Fochs.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed October 19, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed July 30, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 24, 2002) 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, 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.
The anticipation rejection based on Engelhart
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 to 10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Engelhart but not the rejection claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 18
and 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007