Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answers (Paper Nos. 26 and 30) for
the reasoning in support of the rejections and to appellants’
briefs (Paper Nos. 23, 25, 27 and 31) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of the
Board has 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 have reached the
determinations which follow.
Looking first to the rejection of claims 49, 52 through 56
and 58 through 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Lay, we note
that according to the examiner (answer, Paper No. 26, pages 3-4),
“Lay discloses a container with a plurality of inserts on first
and second housing members 11, 12. The insert has recesses and a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007