Appeal No. 2005-2098
Application No. 09/810,641
Claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jöst in view of Marton.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jöst in
view of Marton and Gutknecht.
Rather than 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 final rejection (mailed February 24,
2004) and the examiner’s answer (mailed October 22, 2004) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (filed July 26, 2004) and reply brief
(filed December 13, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007