Appeal No. 2003-0025
Application No. 09/019,871
(Filed Nov. 7, 1997)
Sugai et al. (Sugai) 6,031,313 Feb. 29, 2000
(Filed Dec. 8, 1997)
Claims 1 and 5-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sugai in view of Peot. Claims 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sugai in view of Peot and Sekyra. Claim
19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cousins in view
of Sugai and Peot.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 32, mailed Jun. 21, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 31, filed Mar. 25, 2002) and reply
brief (Paper No. 33, filed Aug. 26, 2002) for the appellants’ 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 make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to group all of the dependent
claims with their respective independent parent claims. (See brief at page 3.)
Additionally, appellants’ include the claims objected to in their second group as standing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007