Appeal No. 2003-2062
Application 09/853,568
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-
noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding those rejections, we refer
to the answer (Paper No. 14, mailed February 25, 2003) for the
examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejections and to the
brief (Paper No. 13, filed January 24, 2003) for appellant’s
views to the contrary.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the issues raised in this appeal has
included a careful assessment of appellant’s specification and
claims, the applied prior art Mayfield reference, and the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2 and
17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Mayfield, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 17 and 18, but not that of
claim 19. Like the examiner, we are of the view that the
depictions in Figures 4, 5 and 7 of the Mayfield patent and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007