Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 4
Application No. 10/244,011
2. Claims 1 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Shrader.
3. Claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Finegan.
4. Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, 14-16, 19-21 and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Carpenter.
5. Claims 23, 25, 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Crusor.
6. Claims 8, 9 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Finegan in view of Shrader.
7. Claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Finegan.
8. Claims 8, 9, 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Finegan and Shrader.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed January 6, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed October 27, 2005)1
and reply brief (filed March 3, 2006) for the appellant's arguments.
1 The appellant filed a first Appeal Brief on April 18, 2005; however, the examiner found the
brief defective because it did not comply with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37. See Notice of Non-Compliant
Appeal Brief, mailed June 23, 2005. The appellant filed a second Appeal Brief on July 19, 2005,
which was also defective. See Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, mailed September 27,
2005. The appellant filed a Revised Appeal Brief on October 27, 2005, on which we rely for the
appellant’s arguments. When we refer throughout this opinion to the appellant’s brief, we are
referring to the Revised Appeal Brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007