Appeal No. 2004-1321 Page 3
Application No. 10/002,633
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Livingood in view of Wettstein.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14, mailed October 1, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 13, filed September 3, 2003) and
reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed December 1, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cermak.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007