Appeal No. 2004-1938
Application No. 09/887,741
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 appellant regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
20, mailed April 20, 2004) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed January
23, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art Schurz reference, to the declaration of Mr.
William M. Chumley, filed July 16, 2003 (Paper No. 11), and to
the respective positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reasons aptly set
forth by the examiner on page 5 of the answer, we will sustain
this rejection. Like the examiner, we also observe that changing
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007