Appeal No. 2004-0749 Page 3
Application No. 09/891,746
The following three rejections are before us in this appeal:
(1) Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Barlett;
(2) Claims 13, 14, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Barlett in view of Howard; and
(3) Claims 8, 16 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barlett.2
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. 14, mailed August 12, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 12, filed May 29, 2003) 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.
2 In the answer, the examiner inadvertently omitted claim 27 from the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
based on Barlett and omitted claim 8 from the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on Barlett.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007