Appeal No. 2003-0104 Page 3
Application No. 09/659,792
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Leslie.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Pulli.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10 to 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pulli in view of Hussain.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed August 14, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
May 9, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 10, filed March 19, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 5,
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007