Appeal No. 2002-0617
Application 08/942,743
unpatentable over Rosen4 in view of Menezes. Claim 5 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen
and Menezes in view of Hellman. Claims 6 through 8 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen,
Menezes, and Hellman in view of Davis. Claim 40 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen and
Menezes in view of Linsker. Claims 19 through 24, 26 through 36,
38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same
reasons given with respect to claims 3 through 8, 10 through 16,
40 through 43, 45 and 46.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
For claims 19 through 24, 26 through 32, 33 through 36, 38
and 39, the Examiner does not clearly state the grounds for these
rejections. We agree with Appellant’s comments at the top of
page 9 of the brief. We will not speculate as to how these
4 Rosen refers to the Examiner’s affidavit signed by Nicole
David Rosen on June 11, 1999.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007