Appeal No. 2005-0340 3
Application No. 10/098,105
Claims 16 through 31 and 41 through 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crowley in view of Sands.
Claims 16 through 47 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crowley in view of Sands and Ho.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and appellants regarding those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed November 6, 2003) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (filed September 8, 2003) and reply brief (filed January 12, 2004) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007