Appeal No. 2002-1392
Application No. 09/390,996
McShane et al. (McShane) 5,613,690 Mar. 25, 1997
Lipps et al. (Lipps) 5,860,861 Jan. 19, 1999
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 25 through 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Lipps.
Claims 9, 13, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lipps in view of McShane.
Claims 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lipps in view of Furtado.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lipps in view of Ward.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 24,
mailed November 7, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
23, filed September 21, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 25,
filed January 7, 2002) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 8, 12,
and 25 through 27 and also the obviousness rejections of claims
9, 13, 14, and 21 through 24.
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 8, 12, and
25 through 27, we find nothing in Lipps that would correspond to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007