Appeal No. 2001-2673
Application No. 09/299,470 Page 3
Claims 1-17 stand rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the prior art as represented by
appellants’ figure 17.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
15, mailed June 14, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14,
filed April 26, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed August
17, 2001) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellants and the examiner.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse.
2 The rejection of claims -17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn
by the examiner (Paper No. 13, mailed March 9, 2001).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007