Appeal No. 2004-0748 Page 3
Application No. 09/427,226
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hacke.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 18, mailed May 30, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 23, mailed
January 30, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 22, filed October 22, 2002) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection based on Buechele
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Buechele.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007