Appeal No. 2005-1893 Page 3
Application No. 09/418,536
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 3, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed March 19, 2004), supplemental brief (filed July 19,
2004) and reply brief (filed December 3, 2004) 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.
Claims 1 to 12, 14 and 18 to 28
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 12, 14 and 18 to 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Skelton.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007