Appeal No. 2005-2038
Application No. 09/957,416
examiner relies upon Meyers in view of Deker.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been filed) for the
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as
expanded upon here, we sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and the rejection of claims 1 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn initially to the rejection of independent claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Deker. The examiner’s rejection of
this claim at pages 3 and 4 of the Final Rejection is consistent with our
understanding of this reference. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by
appellants’ arguments at pages 8 and 9 of the brief on appeal as to this
rejection. Likewise, we are in general agreement with the examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103. The remaining portions of the answer and the brief on
appeal incorrectly list claims 1 through 25 as being rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Since the answer does not repeat the obviousness double
patenting rejection set forth at page 2 of the Final Rejection, we consider it
withdrawn.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007