Appeal No. 2003-0693
Application No. 09/006,248
(6) claims 29, 31, 33 and 41, rejected as being
unpatentable over Kawai in view of Susnjara;
(7) claims 34, 35 and 42, rejected as being unpatentable
over Blatt ‘276 in view of Kraus and Dailey;
(8) claims 43-45, rejected as being unpatentable over
Blatt ‘276 in view of Vachtsevanos and Kraft;
(9) claim 46, rejected as being unpatentable over Blatt
‘276 in view of Hurlimann, Vachtsevanos, Kraft,
Blatt ‘566 and Giern.
Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 26 and 29) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 27) for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner regarding the
merits of these rejections. In support of their position that the
appealed claims are patentable over the prior art, appellants also
rely on the declaration by Mr. Steven E. Sawdon filed March 12,
2001 (Paper No. 15) as evidence of commercial success of the
claimed invention.
Discussion
(1) The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007