Appeal No. 2003-0102 Page 3
Application No. 09/543,439
claims 9-11 as being unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry;
claim 12 as being unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry, Sansbury and
Bemiss;
claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 23 and 27, 28 and 30 as being unpatentable over Curry
in view of Adamek;
claims 1-4, 6 and 23-26 as being unpatentable over Sansbury in view of Markert
and Adamek;
claims 5, 8-11, 27 and 30-33 as being unpatentable over Sansbury in view of
Markert, Adamek and Curry;
claims 7 and 29 as being unpatentable over Sansbury in view of Markert,
Adamek and Bemiss;
claims 9-11 and 31-33 as being unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry and
Adamek1; and
claims 12 and 34 as being unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry, Adamek,
Sansbury and Bemiss.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
1 Notwithstanding the examiner’s statement of the rejection in both the final rejection and the
answer as being based on Markert in view of Curry, it is apparent from a reading of the rejection as a
whole that the rejection is based on the combination of Markert in view of Curry and Adamek. It is also
apparent that appellants understood Adamek to be part of the rejection (see page 5 of the brief).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007