Appeal No. 2004-1354
Application 09/855,929
Claims 6, 15 through 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dickhoff in view of
Kovac.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with respect to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed December 15, 2003) for the reasoning in
support thereof, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 14, filed
November 10, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that neither of the
examiner’s rejections noted above will be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007