Appeal No. 2003-1327
Application 09/375,713
Claims 3 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Donovan in view of Amstutz as applied
to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Rolnicki.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer mailed November 13, 2002 for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief filed August 27, 2002
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants 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 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007