Appeal No.2003-1091
Application No. 09/484,248
stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, the Examiner offers Butcher in view of Takano with
respect to claims 2-8, 11-13, and 15-20, and Butcher in view of
the admitted prior art with respect to claims 9 and 10.2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs3 and the Answer 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, Appellant’s
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.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Butcher fully meets the invention as
2 As indicated at page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the
rejections under the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3 The Appeal Brief was filed September 13, 2002 (Paper No. 16). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated December 3, 2002 (Paper No. 18), a
Reply Brief was filed February 3, 2003 (Paper No. 19) which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated March 20,
2003 (Paper No. 20).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007