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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007