Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
Rather than reiterate the examiner's commentary regarding
the above-noted obviousness rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (mailed
September 14, 2004) and examiner's answer (mailed June 16, 2005)
for the reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
appellants’ brief (filed February 14, 2005) and reply brief
(filed August 17, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
above-noted rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
1 As noted on page 2 of the examiner’s answer the rejection
of claims 1 through 25 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, set forth on page 2 of the final rejection, has now
been withdrawn.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007