Appeal No. 2004-1159
Application 10/108,315
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with respect to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed October 9, 2003) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No.
11, filed June 20, 2003), Supplemental Remarks contained in Paper
No. 12 (filed June 26, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
November 25, 2003) for the comments and arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation and obviousness
issues raised in this appeal in light of the record before us, we
have come to the conclusion that the examiner's rejection of
claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on French will be
sustained, while that based on Monahan will not be sustained.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 13 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monahan, will also not be
sustained. Our reasoning in support of these determinations
follows.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007