Appeal No. 2004-1484
Application 09/438,396
Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Dorf and Walker
‘573.
Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Dorf.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed November
18, 2003) and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 14, filed April 25,
2003) for a full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
answer, that it is instead U.S. Patent No. 6,327,573 to Walker et
al. which is being relied upon by the examiner in the rejection
of claims 1 through 18 on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007