Appeal No. 2006-2338 Page 3
Application No. 10/326,449
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Taylor, Jr. et al. (Taylor) 4,683,597 Aug. 04, 1987
Ball 5,890,241 Apr. 06, 1999
Appellant’s admitted Prior
Art (AAPA), Specification,
page 3, line 17 – page 4, line
34
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taylor and AAPA.
2. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Taylor, AAPA and Ball.1
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 February 13, 2006) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed October 14,
2004) and reply brief (filed April 17, 2006) for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
1 The examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Answer, p. 3.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007