Appeal No. 2004-0214 Page 3
Application No. 09/446,516
Claims 1 to 12, 15 to 17, 20 to 32, 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Deaton.
Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Deaton.
Claims 14, 19 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Deaton in view of De Lapa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the revised
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed July 2, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10, filed January 27, 2003) and
reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 29, 2003) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007