Appeal No. 2004-1798 Application 08/883,387 Claims 27 through 29, 31 through 33 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Livingston. Claims 34 through 45, 47 through 115, 117 through 155 and 157 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Livingston in view of Yarnick and Hughes. Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 25, mailed April 21, 2003) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 22, filed January 13, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 26, filed June 26, 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 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007