Appeal No. 2003-0182 Page 2
Application No. 09/532,579
(specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to
the appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Brunts et al. (Brunts) 5,774,828 Jun. 30, 1998
Dunworth et al. (Dunworth) 5,930,474 Jul. 27, 1999
Rosen et al. (Rosen) 6,014,090 Jan. 11, 2000
Zuber et al. (Zuber) 6,029,110 Feb. 22, 2000
Obradovich et al. (Obradovich) 6,148,261 Nov. 14, 2000
(filed Jun. 20, 1997)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 and 16-181 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rosen in view of Obradovich and Dunworth.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosen in view of Obradovich, Dunworth and Brunts.
Claims 9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Rosen in view of Obradovich, Dunworth and Zuber.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
1 The examiner’s inclusion of canceled claims 8 and 14 in this rejection appears to have been an
inadvertent error.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007