Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
Claims 12 through 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schuster in view Marquez.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed August 7, 2002) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s amended brief
(Paper No. 12, filed July 16, 2002) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
1 As noted on page 3 of the answer, the examiner has now
removed or withdrawn the rejections of claims 12 through 13
relying on Enders in view of Marquez and that of claims 12
through 14 relying on Teasdale in view of Marquez as set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007