Appeal No. 2002-2155
Application No. 09/003,276
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
concerning the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 35, mailed April 25, 2002) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief
(Paper No. 34, filed March 26, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No.
37, filed June 24, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5
through 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we observe that, in
pertinent part, the examiner has made the determination that
Kanou discloses
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007