Appeal No. 2004-1193
Application 09/639,324
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pew and Volz “as applied to claim 3
above,” and further in view of Sheedy.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pew and Volz “as applied to claim 1
above,” and further in view of Wanner.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pew, Volz and Wanner as applied to claim 10
above, and further in view of Daniell.1
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed July 30, 2002) and the examiner's
1 We observe that since the examiner’s treatment of
independent claim 1 mentioned in the examiner’s first rejection
above apparently required use of the combined teachings of Pew,
Volz and Nichting, it would appear that the other rejections made
by the examiner of claims dependent from claim 1 should also have
included each of the three initially applied patents in
combination with one of the other references subsequently added
by the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007