Appeal No. 2004-2173
Application No. 09/970353
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahder in view of Crawley as applied above and
further in view of Morrisette.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we refer to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed April 16,
2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections
and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 18, filed February 23, 2004)
and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed June 18, 2004) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the obviousness issues raised in
this appeal in light of the record before us, we have come to the
conclusion that the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
will not be sustained. Our reasons in support of this
determination follow.
Looking first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5
through 14, 19 through 21, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007