Appeal No. 2002-1163
Application 09/393,374
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9,
re-mailed September 6, 2001) for the full reasoning in support of
the above-noted rejection and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8,
filed August 6, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 11, filed
October 1, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this
appeal has included a careful assessment of appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have reached the conclusions
which follow.
Before addressing the examiner's rejection based on prior
art, we note that it is an essential prerequisite that the
claimed subject matter be fully understood. Accordingly, we
initially direct our attention to appellant’s independent claims
1 and 6 to derive an understanding of the scope and content
thereof.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007