Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 3
Application No. 10/051,573
2. The examiner has rejected claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Whiten.1
3. The examiner has rejected claims 5, 6, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Whiten, as applied to claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-19, and
21, in view of Robertson.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed June 4, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed October 2, 2003) for the
appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
I. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
1 The final office action also included a rejection of claims 1, 9, 11, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,191,436 to Cherry. The examiner subsequently withdrew this
rejection. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 3).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007