Appeal No. 2006-0774 3
Application No. 09/952,349
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Mayer et al. (Mayer) 6,065,712 May 23, 2000
Lieber et al. (Lieber) 6,283,401 Sep. 4, 2001
Claims 1 and 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Mayer.
Claims 1 and 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Lieber.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's commentary
with regard to the above-noted anticipation rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed January 29, 2004) for the examiner’s reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (filed November 10,
2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007