Appeal No. 2006-2895 Page 3
Application No. 09/971,469
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Anderson 2,502,117 Mar. 28, 1950
Mitchard 4,946,540 Aug. 07, 1990
Goldsborough et al. (Goldsborough) 5,163,891 Nov. 17, 1992
Walsh 5,794,812 Aug. 18, 1998
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson.
2. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Walsh.
3. Claims 2, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Mitchard.
4. Claims 2, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Walsh and Mitchard.
5. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Goldsborough.
6. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Walsh and Goldsborough.
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 29, 2004) and the supplemental examiner’s answer
(mailed March 31, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed May 28, 2004), reply brief (filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007