Appeal No. 2005-0948 Page 3
Application No. 09/922,938
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hardy in view of McCormack, Gray and Lebermann.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hardy in view of McCormack and Clay.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the non-final
rejection (mailed August 21, 2003) and the answer (mailed April 7, 2004) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed
February 24, 2004) and reply brief (filed May 5, 2004) 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
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007