Appeal No. 2002-1198
Application 09/349,306
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Williams in view of White and Gidney.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Williams in view of White and Gidney as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiraishi.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 11, mailed June 20, 2001) and examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed October 10, 2001) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
13, filed July 30, 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.
1 As noted on page 3 of the examiner’s answer, the rejection
based on the Hedges patent (US 6,068,562) made in Paper No. 9 has
been withdrawn by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007