Appeal No. 2006-0978 Page 3
Application No. 10/236,087
Applied Prior Art
Lewkowitz 3,750,358 Aug. 7, 1973
Guillemet (Guillemet ‘814) 4,996,814 Mar. 5, 1991
Guillemet (Guillemet ‘349) 5,692,349 Dec. 2, 1997
The Rejections
Claims1, 2, 8, 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lewkowitz.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Guillemet ‘349.
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Guillemet ‘814.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(mailed August 29, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed June 15, 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, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the following determinations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007