Appeal No. 2004-1280 Page 3
Application No. 09/630,938
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 19 and 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lorenzi.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-23 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § as being
unpatentable over Giese in view of Tong or in view of Brown and Thomas.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § as being unpatentable over Giese in
view of Tong or in view of Brown and Thomas and further in view of Kendall.
Claims 26-30 and 35-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § as being unpatentable
over Giese in view of Tong or in view of Brown and Thomas and further in view of
Crowley.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § as being unpatentable over
Giese in view of Tong or in view of Brown and Thomas and further in view of Crowley
and Cameron or Barre.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 26) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 25 and 27) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007