Appeal No. 2003-1144
Application 09/212,343
Claims 9 through 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Helt.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Helt in view of Marchello.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the Office action mailed June 7, 2000 (Paper No. 7)
and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 21, 2002) for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed January 3, 2002) for
appellant's 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 references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007