Appeal No. 2002-0730 4
Application No. 09/410,250
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b)
as being anticipated by Lyde.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being anticipated
by Morrissey.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Lyde in view of Morrissey.
Claims 15 through 17 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as being
anticipated by Dubin.
Claims 21, 22 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dubin in view of Morrissey.
Claims 18 through 20 and 24 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
' 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dubin in view of Lyde.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the examiner that the rejection on the grounds of anticipation
and obviousness over Lyde or Morrissey alone or in combination are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm these rejections. We agree with the appellants that the rejections
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007