Appeal No. 2002-1403 Page 3
Application No. 09/323,783
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schatz 5,195,984 Mar. 23, 1993
Hillstead 5,476,476 Dec. 19, 1995
Claims 25, 26 and 29 to 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Schatz.
Claims 27, 28 and 32 to 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schatz in view of Hillstead.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed March 16, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 14, mailed
November 16, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed September 24, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 16,
filed February 15, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007