Appeal No. 2003-0063
Application No. 09/201,919
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-17 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Beer. Claims 3,
5, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beer in view of D’Andrea.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 9) and Answer
(Paper No. 10) for the respective details.
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 Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in support
of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Beer reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 14-17. With respect to
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, we are also of the view that
the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular
art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007