Appeal No. 2006-1576 3
Application No. 10/223,170
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urbanosky in view of Wagner.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urbanosky in view of Culpepper.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the final rejection (mailed July 29, 2004), the answer
(mailed February 24, 2005) and the supplemental answer (mailed July
5, 2005) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant’s briefs and reply briefs 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 determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007