Appeal No. 2001-0677
Application No. 08/974,575
Vertelney et al. (Vertelney) 5,341,293 Aug. 23, 1994
Harkins et al. (Harkins) 5,689,642 Nov. 18, 1997
(Filed Nov. 22, 1995)
Cuomo et al. (Cuomo) 5,861,883 Jan. 19, 1999
(Filed May 13, 1997)
Austin et al. (Austin) 5,946,458 Aug. 31, 1999
(Filed Mar. 24, 1997)
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, and 13-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cuomo in view of Harkins. Claims 3-5, 9-10, and 12 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cuomo in view of Harkins, further
in view of Vertelney. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cuomo in view of Harkins, further in view of Austin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed Nov. 7, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8, filed Aug. 22, 2000) for appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007