Appeal No. 2005-0200
Application No. 09/840,817
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 17, and 18 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by de
Haan. Claims 3, 7, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over de Haan.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 de Haan reference does not fully meet the invention as
set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 17, and 18. With
1The Appeal Brief was filed June 1, 2004 (Paper No. 13). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer dated June 16, 2004 (Paper No. 14), a Reply Brief was
filed August 19, 2004 (Paper No. 15), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 7, 2004 (Paper
No. 16).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007