Appeal No. 2005-0846
Application No. 09/981,339
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner
are:
Conroy et al. (Conroy) 6,232,380 B1 May 15, 2001
(filing date: Nov. 25, 1998)
Duvall et al. (Duvall) 6,528,566 B2 Mar. 4, 2003
(filing date: Aug. 13, 1998)
Duvall et al. (Duvall) EP 0 890 608 A2 Jan. 13, 1999
(published European Patent Office Patent Application)
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement of the statute.
2. Claims 1-6 and 9-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Conroy or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious from Conroy.
3. Claims 1-18 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Duvall 6,528,566 (hereafter
Duvall) or Duvall EP 890 608 (hereafter EP).
We have carefully evaluated the entire record in light of
the opposing positions taken by the appellant and the examiner.
Having done so, we shall affirm the rejection of claim 35 based
upon 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Additionally, we shall
affirm the rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-35 as being anticipated
or, in the alternative, as being obvious from Conroy. Also, with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007