Appeal No. 2002-2039 Page 3
Application No. 09/258,712
Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 10, 21 to 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Moncelle in view of Ganser.
Claims 1, 6 to 10, 21, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Ganser.
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. 30, mailed April 17, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 29, filed April 5, 2002) and reply brief
(Paper No. 31, filed June 19, 2002) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007