Appeal No. 2004-0616 Application 09/692,982 Claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20 additionally stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ripka in view of Chase. Claims 1, 4 through 6, 8 through 11, 14 through 16 and 18 through 20 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reinke. Rather than attempt to reiterate the full text of the examiner's positions set forth in the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15, mailed May 20, 2003), to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 1, 2003), and to the reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed June 13, 2003), for a full exposition thereof. OPINION In reviewing the obviousness issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner. As a 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007