Appeal No. 2003-1349 Page 3
Application No. 09/768,969
Claims 9 to 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Latzke in view Bulzomi.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Latzke in view Bulzomi as applied to claims 9 to 13 and 15 above, and further in view of
Terry.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed November 8, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed October 15, 2002) and
reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed January 17, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007