Appeal No. 2004-2118 Page 5
Application 09/329,502
Rather than reiterating the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answers and final
rejection and to appellants’ briefs for a complete exposition
thereof.
OPINION
We have reviewed appellants’ arguments for patentability.
However, we find ourselves in agreement with the examiner’s
determination that the applied prior art renders the claimed
subject matter unpatentable under the provisions of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Moreover, we generally agree with the
examiner’s rebuttal of appellants’ arguments with respect to the
§ 103(a) rejections as set forth in the answers. We offer the
following for emphasis and completeness.
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8 and 9
According to appellants (brief, page 4), all of the claims
do not stand or fall together. Regarding this rejection,
separate arguments are presented by appellants only for claims 2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007