Appeal No. 2004-2139
Application No. 09/181,601
I. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallace in view of Holm and Farber.
II. Claims 1, 5-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wallace in view of Holm, Farber and Friedrichs.
III. Claims 1, 5-141 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wallace in view of Holm, Farber, Friedrichs and Bagby.
IV. Claims 1-9 [sic, 1, 3-9], 11-14 and 17 [sic]2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wallace in view of Holm, Farber and Friedrichs.
We have carefully considered the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner and find ourselves in substantial agreement with that of the examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Background
As indicated by claim 1, above, the present invention is directed to a “high-
1 We point out that claim 10 was not included in any of the examiner’s rejections;
nor has the examiner indicated that said claim is allowable. Given the subject matter of
this claim, and that it was included in the rejection of claims 1, 5-9 and 11-14 in the final
rejection, it appears that the examiner inadvertently omitted this claim from the § 103
rejection in the Answer. Thus, we have included it with the statement of rejection,
above.
2 We point out that claims 2 and 17 were canceled by amendment filed February
18, 2003.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007