Appeal No. 2004-0100
Application No. 09/650,843
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Duer.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fumero.1
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Duer.
Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fumero.2
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tabler.
Claims 23, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Duer in view of Fumero.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner indicates that the
rejection of claims 3 and 4 has been withdrawn and that these
claims are considered allowable over the prior art of record.
1 We note that the examiner included, for the first time in the
answer, claim 2 and claim 6, in this rejection. In the final Office
Action of Paper No. 7, on page 2, the examiner rejected claims 2 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On page 3 of the answer, the examiner
indicates that claim 2 and claim 6 are now anticipated by Fumero.
2 Claims 11 and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fumero,
along with claims 2-6, on page 3 of the final Office Action of Paper
No. 7. Now, claims 2-6 are not in this rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007