Appeal No. 2005-1953 Page 3
Application No. 09/765,533
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting the appealed claims:
Dionne et al. (Dionne) 5,645,494 Jul. 08,1997
The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way
as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the
time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner
also rejected the subject matter of claims 1 and 3 to 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Dionne. (Office Action mailed May 14, 2003, pp. 2-4). We affirm the rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-18,
21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, the rejection of claims 3, 5, 19 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed October 6, 2004) and the Office Action mailed May 14, 2003 for the
Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Briefs (filed October 6,
2003, February 11, 2004 and November 08, 2004) for the Appellant’s arguments there
against.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007