Appeal No. 2004-0842
Application No. 09/539,454
REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 9 through 11, 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Perkins;
2. Claims 1 through 4, 8 through 14 and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Killingbeck and Perkins;
3. Claims 5 through 7 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Killingbeck, Perkins and Westover; and
4. Claims 44 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Killingbeck, Perkins and Smith.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. As a consequence of this review, we have
made the determinations which follow1.
1 We observe that the appellants question the propriety of
the examiner’s refusal to enter the amendments and Information
Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed in the application. See the
Brief, pages 2-4 and 6. We also observe that the examiner
objects to claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 under 37 CFR § 1.75(c) as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007