Appeal No. 2006-1343 3
Application No. 10/121,530
Claims 1, 16 and 17 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mack in view Landgren and
Müller.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
appellant and the examiner regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the answers (mailed January 14, 2005 and November 2,
2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant’s brief (filed September 7, 2004), reply brief
(filed March 17, 2005) and corrected brief (filed September 21,
2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejections on appeal will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007