Appeal No. 2006-1692 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/068,243
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Thompson et al. 4,203,509 May 20, 1980
(Thompson)
Rowles 6,354,424 Mar. 12, 2002
(filed Jun. 1, 2000)
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described
in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention;
and in particular, as containing new matter.
Claims 7, 10, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Thompson.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Rowles.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thompson.
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 March 8,
2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed December 12, 2003) and reply
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007