Appeal No. 2004-0915 Page 2
Application No. 09/919,469
page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the
appellant's brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Spencer 4,057,932 Nov. 15, 1977
Groth et al. (Groth) 4,742,644 May 10, 1988
Wareing et al. (Wareing) 4,790,105 Dec. 13, 1988
Graham et al. (Graham) 5,382,270 Jan. 17, 1995
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Spencer.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spencer in view of Graham.
Claims 4-11, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Spencer in view of Wareing.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spencer in view of Wareing and Graham.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spencer in view of Wareing and Groth.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 8 and 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007