Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 4
Application No. 09/716,045
Claims 1 to 3, 6, 10, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Methfessel in view of Larsen.
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Methfessel and Larsen in view of Louttit.
Claims 8, 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Methfessel in view of Larsen and Lenhart.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the second
Office action (Paper No. 5, mailed September 16, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 9,
mailed May 30, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 8, filed May 14, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No.
10, filed August 4, 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 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007