Appeal No. 2005-1549
Application No. 10/193,407
PRIOR ART REFERENCE
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Enlow et al. (Enlow) 5,490,893 Feb. 13, 1996
THE REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows2:
1) Claims 11, 12, 14, 18 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Enlow; and
2) Claims 13, 15 through 17, 19, 20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of Enlow.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Sections 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are well
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s Sections
102(b) and 103(a) rejections for essentially those findings of
fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We add the
following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
2 See the Answer, pages 3-5 and the Brief, page 5.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007