Appeal No. 2002-1257
Application No. 08/913,523
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Holland 3,636,524 Jan. 18, 1972
Applegate et al. (Applegate) 5,424,949 Jun. 13, 1995
Baker et al. (Baker) 5,864,687 Jan. 26, 1999
(effectively filed Jul. 30, 1993)
Claim 11 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Holland. Claims 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holland in view of Baker and Applegate.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the
respective details.1
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
1 We make the observation that the language “characteristic information”
at lines 7 and 8 of claim 11 should apparently be --characteristic
identification–- for proper antecedent reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007