Appeal No. 2006-0109 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/350,187
The Evidence of Anticipation and Obviousness
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Kabasin 6,615,129 Sep. 2, 2003
Sondermann DE 4229186 Mar. 3, 1994
(German patent document)
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kabasin.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kabasin in view of Sondermann.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 2, 2004) and supplemental answer (mailed February 17, 2005) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief (filed
September 2, 2004), first reply brief (filed December 22, 2004) and second reply brief
(filed April 15, 2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007