Appeal No. 2005-0117 Page 3
Application No. 09/860,423
3. Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Andrieu in view of Holland, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, further in view of
Holt.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and the answer (mailed October 22, 2003) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed July 3, 2003) for the
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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007