Appeal No. 2006-0125
Application 10/086,316
of the subject matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in the Appendix
attached to appellants’ brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Heyman 3,516,111 Dec. 22, 1967
Newman et al. (Newman) 4,057,203 Nov. 8, 1997
Fore 5,368,245 Nov. 29, 1994
Bass et al. (Bass) 5,520,347 May 28, 1996
Claims 10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fore.
Claims 10 through 16 and 22 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fore in view of Heyman.
Claims 17 through 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bass in view of Newman.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner regarding those rejections,
we make reference to the final rejection (mailed January 23, 2004) and answer (mailed
August 4, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’
brief (filed May 26, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007