Appeal No. 2006-1776
Application No. 10/075,976
We also make the following art of record
Acker et al. (Acker) 6,883,140 April 19, 2005
(filed February 24, 2000)
Lively U.S. Applic. Pub. No. 2002/090240 July 11, 2002
(eff. filing March 9, 2000)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable as obvious over Jennel in view of Hinton.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (mailed September 22, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and
to appellant's brief (filed August 12, 2005) and reply brief (filed November 25, 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 make the determinations that follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007