Appeal No. 2006-0253 3
Application No. 10/336,935
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) because the applicants did not
invent the claimed subject matter.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Van Erden.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (mailed March
2, 2004) and supplemental examiner's answer (mailed August 12, 2005) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (filed August 12, 2004) and reply brief
(filed October 22, 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 references, and to the respective
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007