Appeal No. 2005-1266 3
Application No. 10/227,755
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Smith 5,071,133 Dec. 10, 1991
Rosi 6,425,582 Jul. 30, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Smith.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Rosi.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
March 17, 2004 and July 30, 2004) and the final rejection and
answer (mailed December 29, 2003 and June 16, 2004) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 8 as
being anticipated by Smith
The appellant, stating that “[c]laims 1-8 and 11 stand or
fall together” (reply brief, page 2), does not separately argue
the patentability of any of these claims apart from the others.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007