Appeal No. 2005-1273 Page 3
Application No. 10/057,619
Claims 7 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yashima in view of Granzow and Logan.
Claims 15 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yashima in view of Granzow and Asakawa.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yashima in view of Granzow and Chapin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 1, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed October 5, 2004) and reply brief (filed December 20,
2004) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007