Appeal No. 2002-2205
Application 09/220,291
The examiner relies on the following references:
Mullins 5,857,197 Jan. 05, 1999
(filed Mar. 20, 1997)
Ludwig et al. (Ludwig) 6,006,230 Dec. 21, 1999
(filed Jan. 29, 1997)
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Mullins.
Claims 4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Mullins in view of
Ludwig.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
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, the
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.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007