Appeal No. 2002-1123
Application No. 09/110,987
of the most obvious kind, on a par with the differences between
a hairbrush and a toothbrush.”).
We have also considered the arguments set forth in the
reply brief filed Feb. 22, 2002 (paper 19), but do not find them
persuasive of any reversible error in the examiner’s rejection
of appealed claim 1.
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, of appealed claims 3 and 8 as indefinite;
and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 5,
6, and 8 as unpatentable over Garr in view of Stoller.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007