Appeal No. 2003-0405 Page 3
Application No. 09/635,183
Claims 2 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Cikanek.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed August 27, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed June 3, 2002) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed November 4, 2002) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The enablement rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007