Appeal No. 2006-0686 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/407,053
Claims 15, 19, 20 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Anderson (U.S. Patent Number 4,566,678).
Claims 1 , 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 to 14, 17 and 21 to 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Platkiewicz et al. (U.S. Patent
Number 4,465,799), Curtis et al. (U.S. Patent Number 5,036,774) and Spencer et al.
(U.S. Patent Number 5,086,707).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 20, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed May 10, 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 references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007