Appeal No. 2003-0085
Application No. 09/463,925
2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed September 3, 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 Fijioka reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which
follow.
Having reviewed and evaluated the Fijioka patent, we share
appellants' assessment of the rejections on appeal and agree with
appellants that Fijioka does not disclose, teach or suggest a
method (e.g., claim 12) or system (e.g., claim 22) like that
defined in the claims before us on appeal, or render obvious
claims 18 and 28. In that regard, we share appellants' views as
expressed on pages 5 through 7 of the brief and in the reply
brief, which positions we adopt as our own.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007