Appeal No. 2005-1698 Page 3
Application No.09/775,425
Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Todd.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (mailed November 5, 2002) and corrected answer2 (mailed May 21, 2004) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (filed
May 5, 2003) and reply brief3 (filed October 3, 2003) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
2 The examiner issued a corrected answer on May 21, 2004 in response to an administrative
remand by the BPAI objecting to the examiner’s failure to list the prior art references cited in the answer
mailed July 28, 2003.
3 Per appellants’ request in the reply filed July 23, 2004, the reply brief filed October 3, 2003 is
considered as appellants’ reply to both the answer mailed July 28, 2003 and the corrected answer mailed
May 21, 2004.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007