Appeal No. 2003-0470
Application 09/671,870
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellant and the
examiner regarding that rejection, we make reference to the
final rejection (Paper No. 9, mailed February 28, 2002) and
the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed August 9, 2002)
for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 29, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed October 7, 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 Paulson reference, and to
the respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the examiner’s rejection of claims 5,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007