Appeal No. 2003-0360 Page 3
Application No. 09/264,398
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b):
(1) Claims 20-32 and 34 as being anticipated by Burland.
(2) Claim 33 as being anticipated by Duemmler.
The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
(1) Claims 20-22, 24, 25, 27 and 34 as being unpatentable over Derecktor
in view of Duemmler.
(2) Claims 20-22, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32 and 34 as being unpatentable over
Sibinger in view of Duemmler.
(3) Claims 20, 21, 24 and 34 as being unpatentable over Ozog in view of
Duemmler.
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. 22) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 21) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007