Appeal No. 2005-2135 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/038,910
Claims 22, 33-35, 43, 45 and 47-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Beyene.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Smalley, Corcoran or Beyene in view of Muller.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the non-final
rejection (mailed April 2, 2004) and answer (mailed December 17, 2004) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief1 (filed
August 2, 2004) and reply brief (filed February 17, 2005) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1 Appellants’ “REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF APPEAL” filed August 2, 2004 is referred to
herein as appellants’ brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007