Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 4
Application No. 10/145,226
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jacques '420 in view of Jacques '342 and Capper.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed May 14, 2003) and the answer (mailed March 12, 2004) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed
December 29, 2003) and reply brief (filed May 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 references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
The double patenting rejections
The examiner has set forth the bases for these rejections in the following manner
(final rejection, pp. 5-6):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007