Appeal No. 2006-0659 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/370,237
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Pallakoff 6,269,343 B1 July 31, 2001
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 16 and 18 to 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Pallakoff.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed August 22, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (filed June 28, 2005) and reply brief (filed October 24, 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 reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007