Appeal No. 2005-1361
Application No. 09/798,287 2
Dow et al. (Dow) 5,351,247 Sep. 27, 1994
Brichta et al. (Brichta) 5,790,780 Aug. 04, 1998
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, 16-20, 22-27, 29 and 32 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Dow.
2. Claims 5, 12, 14, 15, 21, 28, 30 and 31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Dow taken alone.
3. Claims 33, 34 and 38-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Brichta.
4. Claims 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Brichta taken alone.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007