Appeal No. 2002-1589
Application 09/280,180
Claims 1, 6 through 17 and 23 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kund (Figs.
6-9) in view of Chou.2
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. 9, mailed December 14, 2000) and examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed August 29, 2001) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
15, filed August 3, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed
December 18, 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
2 A rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, 12, 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen (U.S.
3,537,328) in view of Uuskallio (U.S. 4,823,752) set forth on
pages 4-6 of the final rejection (Paper No. 9) has now been
withdrawn by the examiner. See pages 3 and 4 of the examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 17).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007