Appeal No. 2005-2210 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/996,974
(mailed October 20, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed July 26, 2004) and reply brief (filed December 20, 2004)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swain in view of Van Breen.2
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Swain in view of Van Breen3 and Rauh.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Swain in view of Van Breen and Schiltz.
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Read in view of Swain.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Read in view of Swain and Van Breen.
2 The amendment to claims 1 and 4 subsequent to the final rejection necessitated the altered
ground of rejection of claims 1 and 4, which had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Swain in the final rejection.
3 We, like appellants (brief, page 6), presume that Van Breem is relied upon in this rejection in
light of the examiner's inclusion of this reference in the rejection of claims 1 and 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007