Appeal No. 2005-0637
Application No. 10/117,958
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Martin et al. (Martin) 5,660,270 Aug. 26, 1997
Claims 15-17 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Martin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants 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 rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Martin reference does not fully meet the invention as
1 The Appeal Brief was filed April 15, 2004). In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed June 21, 2004, a Reply Brief was filed July 9, 2004,
which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the
communication mailed August 4, 2004.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007