Appeal No. 2006-0020 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/984,009
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23-25, 28, 29, 31, 32 and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shimano in view of McMaster and Lee.
Claims 15 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Shimano in view of McMaster, Lee and Hoh.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
and response to reply brief for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed June 1, 2005) and reply brief (filed August 10, 2005) for
the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
1 Page 2 of the examiner’s response to appellants’ reply brief (mailed September 1, 2005)
explains inadvertent errors in the examiner’s final rejection and answer (mailed July 15, 2005) and clarifies
the evidence relied upon in the rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007