Appeal No. 2005-2633 Page 2
Application No. 10/254,376
Berger et al. (Berger) 4,263,247 Apr. 21, 1981
Klobucar et al. (Klobucar) 5,162,092 Nov. 10, 1992
Daniel et al. (Daniel) 5,833,304 Nov. 10, 1998
Keller et al. (Keller) 6,063,315 May 16, 2000
Wandyez 6,409,947 Jun. 25, 2002
Barber et al. (Barber) 6,451,232 Sep. 17, 2002
(filed March 25, 1999)
The Examiner entered the following rejections (Answer, pp. 3-10):
Claims 17, 18, 21, 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '103(a) as obvious over
Barber in view of Daniel.
Claims 19 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '103(a) as obvious over Keller
in view of Klobucar and in further view of Wandyez.
Claims 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '103(a) as being unpatentable
over Berger in view of Barber.
The Examiner also entered a new ground of rejection of claims 17 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. '102(e) as anticipated by Barber.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(mailed March 23, 2005) for the Examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Briefs (filed February 25, 2005 and June 9, 2005) for the Appellants= arguments
there against. We reverse the '' 102 and 103 rejections. Our reasons follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007