Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 3
Application No. 10/075,786
1. Claims 1 to 9 and 27 to 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Andrieu in view of Holland.
2. Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ratigan in view of Holland.
3. Claims 10 to 12 and 36 to 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Andrieu in view of Holland (herein referred to as modified Andrieu),
as applied to claims 1 and 27 above, further in view of Kite.
4. Claims 13 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Andrieu in view of Holland, as applied to claims 1 and 27 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 February 24, 2004) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed July 2, 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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007