Appeal No. 2002-1192
Application 09/256,383
Claims 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lalvani in view of Lawman as applied
above, and further in view of Jackson.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-
noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed August
28, 2001) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 13, filed June 6, 2001) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007