Appeal No. 2004-1750 Application No. 09/985,937 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. 17, mailed October 30, 2003) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 16, filed September 29, 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, to the declaration of Mr. Thomas J. Nosker filed May 29, 2003 (Paper No. 11), and to the respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations which follow. Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Garber, for the reasons aptly set forth by appellants in their brief (pages 3-5), we agree that Garber does not identically disclose each and 33Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007