Appeal No. 2006-0599
Application 10/076,270
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Stephens et al. (Stephens) 2,889,163 Jun. 2, 1959
Mitzkus et al. (Mitzkus) 5,553,803 Sep. 10, 1996
Wier 6,250,720 Jun. 26, 2001
Claims 11 and 14 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitzkus in view of Wier.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mitzkus in view of Wier as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stephens.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding the above-noted
obviousness rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
August 26, 2004) for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (filed
May 5, 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 our review, we have made
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007