Appeal No. 2004-0174
Application No. 09/789,405
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Hartman, Jr. (Hartman) 5,224,166 Jun. 29, 1993
Chou et al. ( Chou) 5,337,357 Aug. 9, 1994
McCarty 5,666,411 Sep. 9, 1997
Claims 70-72, 75-77, 80-85, 88-90 and 93-99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Hartman. Claims 100-102 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Hartman in
view of appellants’ own admission. Claims 73, 74, 78, 79, 86, 87, 91, and 92 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chou in view of Hartman in
view of McCarty.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed Apr. 23, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed Feb. 11, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 18, filed Jun. 23, 2003) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007