Appeal No. 2002-1911 Page 3
Application No. 09/598,087
Claims 4 to 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Verma in view of Asche.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed August 29, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 17, mailed
April 8, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 14, filed February 12, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed
June 14, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007