Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/435,175
(published International Pat. Appl. No. PCT/EP99/02355)2
Claims 12-16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Grosch in view of Muller. Claim 17
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Grosch in view of Muller and Bowman.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
2
2 Our references to Grosch are to U.S. Patent No. 6,551,546,
which patent is employed as an English language equivalent
(translation) of WO 99/52626 by the examiner. See page 5, line 3
of the answer. Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s reliance
on U.S. Patent No. 6,551,546 as an acceptable English language
equivalent (translation) of the disclosure of WO 99/52626.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007