Appeal No. 2004-2110
Application No. 09/910,654
Claims 1-15, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(f) because appellant did not invent the claimed subject
matter. Claims 1-15, 17 and 18 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness the examiner
offers Friedes in view of IAH.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the rejection
of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f). We are also of the view
that the prior art relied upon does not support the examiner’s
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007