Appeal No. 2004-1114 Page 3
Application No. 10/079,706
Claims 1 to 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Hart.
Claim 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hart.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed December 27, 2002) and the answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed September 24, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed August 26, 2003) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art patent to Hart, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007