Appeal No. 2001-1569
Application No. 09/007,714
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6,2 20, 21, 23, 25, and 263 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Bowater. Claims 3, 4, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bowater in view of Hulen.
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. 12, mailed Jan. 30, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Dec. 5, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed Mar. 21, 2001) 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.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 20, appellant argues that Bowater
does not anticipate claims 1 and 20 either by expressly or inherently teaching the
claimed invention as recited. (See brief at page 4.) Appellant argues that Bowater
2 We note that the examiner has not recited claim 6 in the statement of the rejection in the
answer, but does include the claim in the final rejection which has been incorporated.
3 Additionally, we interpret the examiner’s listing of claim 16 to be claim 26 since claim 16 has
been withdrawn from consideration.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007