Appeal No. 2003-0200 3
Application No. 09/250,524
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
As evidence of anticipation and obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following
references:
Papathomas et al. (Papathomas) 5,194,930 Mar. 16, 1993
Agarwala et al. (Agarwala) 5,251,806 Oct. 12, 1993
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 57 and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
Agarwala.
Claim 79 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Agarwala in view of Papathomas.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants for the reasons stated in the Brief and those set
forth herein that the rejection of claims 57, 79 and 80 under §§ 102(b) and 103(a) is
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse both rejections.
The Rejections under §§ 102(b) and 103(a)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007