Appeal No. 2003-1520 Page 2
Application No. 09/670,146
The prior art references
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Paroff et al. (Paroff) 5,847,674 Dec. 8, 1998
Sevier et al. (Sevier) 5,912,448 Jun. 15, 1999
Campbell 6,027,203 Feb. 22, 2000
Wen 6,109,745 Aug. 29, 2000
The rejections
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Wen in view of Sevier.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wen
in view of Sevier as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Paroff.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wen
in view of Sevier as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Campbell.
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. 9, mailed August 28, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed June 27, 2002) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007