Appeal No. 2003-0588
Application 09/559,921
and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the
final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed May 1, 2002) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed October 7, 2002) for
the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appel-
lant’s brief (Paper No. 9, filed August 16, 2002) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellant’s specification
and to claim 12, to the applied prior art Anderson ‘076
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we have made the determination which follows.
Having reviewed and evaluated Anderson ‘076, we
share appellant’s assessment of the rejection on appeal and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007