Appeal No. 2005-0988
Application 09/878,592
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the final rejection
(mailed July 25, 2003) and the examiner’s answer (mailed May 3,
2004) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellant’s brief (filed February 17, 2004) and reply brief
(filed July 2, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the evidence
adduced by the examiner is sufficient to establish obviousness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the subject matter of
claims 11 and 20 through 22 on appeal, and that the examiner’s
rejection of those claims will accordingly be sustained. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007