Appeal No. 2003-0326
Application No. 09/050,871
Day 5,734,696 Mar. 31, 1998
(applicably filed Feb. 20, 1996)
Gundersen 5,787,147 Jul. 28, 1998
(filed Dec. 21, 1995)
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cowgill in view of Gundersen.
Claims 7 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Day in view of Gundersen.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Day in view of Gundersen as
applied to claim 7 and further in view of Cowgill.
Claims 15 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cowgill in view of Gundersen and
further in view of Kline.
Throughout the opinion, we will make reference to the Brief1
and Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on April 1, 2002. Appellants filed a
Reply Brief on August 14, 2002. The Examiner mailed out an Office
communication on September 11, 2002 stating the Reply had been entered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007