Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mockridge in view of Take, Helmstetter
and Drajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Motomiya.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mockridge in view of Take, Helmstetter and
Drajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mills.
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 15, 2002 (Paper No. 14) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief filed
October 9, 2002 (Paper No. 13) and reply brief filed January 15,
2003 (Paper No. 15) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007