Ex Parte CHURCHES et al - Page 3



          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           


                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007