Appeal No. 2004-2195
Application No. 09/394,189
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Erturk. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 22-26, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuru in view of Krenz, Lane and Erturk. Claims 5
and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsuru,
Krenz, Lane and Erturk in view of Flowerdew. Claim 28 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Erturk. Claim 30 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Erturk in view of Naitou.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed May 6, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 18, filed Feb. 10, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 20, filed July 7, 2003) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007