Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omata in view of Mahaffey.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Omata in view of Mahaffey as applied to claim 1
above, and further in view of Aylward.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed August
12, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (filed June 21, 2004) and
reply brief (filed October 18, 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
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007