Appeal No. 2005-2544
Application No. 09/328,749
Claims 1, 8 through 11, 15 through 17, 19 through 21, 24 and
26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Anderie in view of Dubner and Kraeuter.
Claims 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderie in view of Dubner and Kraeuter as
applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Nagano.
Claims 2 through 4, 11 through 14 and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderie in view of
Dubner and Kraeuter as applied to claims 1 and 9 above.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderie in view of Dubner and Kraeuter as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eisenbach.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed August 19,
2003) and supplemental answer (mailed August 9, 2004) for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007