Appeal No. 2006-2275 Page 2
Application No. 09/731,998
The examiner relies on the following references:
Watson, Jr. 2002/0026517 Feb. 28, 2002
James et al. (James) 6,108,739 Aug. 22, 2000
Claims 1-6, 8-18, 20-29, 31-41, 43-52, 54-64, and 66-69 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Watson.
Claims 7, 19, 30, 42, 53, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Watson in view of James.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have but a single issue before us in the instant case. The two outstanding
rejections are based in whole or in major part on the Watson Patent Application
Publication 2002/0026517, having a publication date of February 28, 2002, and a filing
date of June 29, 2001, or more accurately, on the provisional application No. 60/215,774,
filed June 30, 2000, on which the non-provisional Watson Patent Application Publication
is based.
There are no arguments before us regarding the merits of the rejections.
Appellants’ sole argument is that the Watson reference is not a proper reference under 35
U.S.C. § 102/103 because its filing date of June 29, 2001 is after the December 7, 2000
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007