Appeal No. 2003-1146
Application No. 09/595,249
unpatentable over the teachings of Freedman in view of Brovman.
4. Claims 14, 15, 17-22, 36, 37 and 39-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Crandall in view of Freedman.
5. Claims 16 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Crandall in view of Freedman and further in view of
Inoue.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 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 evidence relied
upon does not support the rejection of any of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we
reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-13, 23-29 and 32-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Freedman. Anticipation is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007