Appeal No. 2002-2151
Application No. 09/342,234
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-
noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellants regarding the rejection, we make
reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 5, mailed March 9,
2001) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12, mailed March 28,
2002) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellants' brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 4, 2002) and reply
brief (Paper No. 13, filed May 28, 2002) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner's
above-noted obviousness rejection will not be sustained. Our
reasons follow.
As highlighted by appellants in their brief and reply brief,
the central point of disagreement between appellants and the
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007