Appeal No. 2004-1052 Page 3
Application No. 09/848,132
Claims 20, 21, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Winninger in view of Semin.
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. 10, mailed October 7, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 9, filed July 11, 2003) and reply
brief (Paper No. 11, filed November 12, 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.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 15 to 19 and 22 to 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Winninger.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007