Appeal No. 2004-1123
Application No. 09/933,503
of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims may be
found in the Appendix to appellants' brief (Paper No. 10).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Parikh et al. (Parikh) 4,739,882 Apr. 26, 1988
Baseman et al. (Baseman) 5,346,518 Sep. 13, 1994
Roberson, Jr. et al. 5,879,458 Mar. 9, 1999
(Roberson)
Brooks 6,155,027 Dec. 5, 2000
Claims 10 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Baseman in view of Brooks, Roberson
and Parikh.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted obviousness rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding that rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
December 24, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 10, filed
September 29, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007