Appeal No. 2006-0320
Application No. 10/293,833
Rather than reiterate the examiner's specific comments
regarding the above-noted obviousness rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding that rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed June 6, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed March 2, 2005) and
reply brief (filed June 27, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejection. Thus, that rejection is no longer before us on
appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007