Appeal No. 2005-2486
Application No. 10/331,384
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Berting et al. (Berting) 4,393,379 July 12, 1983
Feinstein 6,466,198 October 15, 2002
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Feinstein. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Feinstein in view of Berting.
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, appellant’s arguments set forth in the
briefs, along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer. With full consideration being given to the
subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and
examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 8, 10 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or the examiner’s
rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues on page 5 of the brief that the examiner, in using the definition
“a person or thing equal to or similar to another,” is applying the wrong definition of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007