Appeal No. 2002-2286
Application 09/706,252
Claim 19 additionally stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goodloe in view of Severinsen
and Tzeng.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
regarding 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. 8, mailed July 1, 2002) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 7, filed
May 9, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 9, filed August 9, 2002)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claim 19,
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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007