Appeal No. 2005-0775 Page 2
Application No. 09/815,628
The Prior Art
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Bobrowski 3,342,457 Sep. 19, 1967
Venegas, Jr., et al. (Venegas II) 5,364,077 Nov. 15, 1994
Venegas, Jr. (Venegas I) 5,396,739 Mar. 14, 1995
Parisien 5,474,279 Dec. 12, 1995
The Rejections
Claims 5, 6, 8, 17 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Venegas I in view of Venegas II.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Venegas I in view of Venegas II and further in view of Parisien.
Claims 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Venegas I in view of Bobrowski.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed January 28, 2004) and answer (mailed August 13, 2004) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (filed June
30, 2004) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007