Appeal No. 2002-2194 Page 3
Application No. 09/594,532
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spink
in view of Elholm and Lefebvre and Bjerkoy.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spink in view of Elholm and Lefebvre and Chaverebiere de Sal.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spink in view of Lefebvre and Chaverebiere de Sal.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the first
Office action (Paper No. 3, mailed June 4, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 12, mailed
April 10, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed March 25, 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. Upon evaluation of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007