Appeal No. 2004-1413
Application No. 09/475,941
The prior art of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is as follows:
Douglas et al. (Douglas) 5,491,784 Feb. 13, 1996
Root 5,606,674 Feb. 25, 1997
Crawford 5,754,176 May 19, 1998
Kausik 6,170,058 Jan. 2, 2001
(Filed Dec. 23, 1997)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Root in view of Crawford. Claims 2-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Root and Crawford in view of Kausik. Claims 1-11 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of
Crawford.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Oct. 22, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed Apr. 29, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 12, filed Dec. 29, 2003) for appellant's 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 references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007