Appeal No. 2004-1053
Application No. 09/772,409
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Hatton 5,378,515 Jan. 03, 1995
Hamerski et al. (Hamerski) 6,120,867 Sep. 19, 2000
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hatton (Answer, page 5).2 Claims 2-
4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hatton (id.). Claims 5, 9,
26 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hatton in view of Hamerski (Answer, page 7).3 We affirm all
of the examiner’s rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejections over Hatton alone
For purposes of judicial economy, we will discuss the first
two listed rejections together, since the same statutory basis
2We note that the examiner erroneously stated this rejection
as based on section 102(b) in the final Office action, even
though section 103(a) is quoted before this rejection (Paper No.
9, page 2). However, we hold this error harmless as appellant
has correctly stated and argued this rejection as based on
section 103(a)(Brief, pages 10-11) and the examiner has correctly
stated the rejection on page 5 of the Answer.
3The final rejection of claim 12 over Conway in view of
Hatton has been withdrawn by the examiner (Answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007