Appeal No. 2002-1130
Application 09/224,234
unpatentable over Erving and Billström in view of Paneth. Claims
4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erving and Billström in view of Bodin. Claims
5, and 10 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Erving and Billström in view of Frodigh.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Erving and Billström in view of Uddenfeldt.
Claims 18 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Scotton in view of Erving.
Throughout our opinion, we will make reference to the
briefs1 and answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the
Appellants and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6, 10 through 12,
and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 18, 2001.
Appellants filed a reply brief on October 15, 2001. Appellants
filed a corrected reply brief on October 18, 2001. We will refer
to the corrected reply brief as simply the reply brief in our
opinion. The Examiner mailed out an office communication on
November 2, 2001, stating that the reply brief filed on October
15, 2001 has been noted. We note that the corrected reply brief
filed on October 18, 2001 has been entered into the record.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007