Ex Parte Longnecker et al - Page 3


                Appeal No. 2006-3076                                                        Page 3                 
                Application No. 10/004,948                                                                         

                                                  REJECTIONS                                                       
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the              
                Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's               
                answer (mailed December 21, 2005 ) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to           
                Appellants’ brief (filed  Feb. 16, 2005 ) and reply brief (filed June 28, 2005) for the            
                arguments thereagainst.                                                                            
                    Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 19, 21-23, 26, and 28-36 stand rejected under 35           
                U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by over O’Sullivan, or in the alternative, under 35              
                U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over O’Sullivan in view of Flansburg.1                             
                    Claims 6, 13, 20, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable            
                over O’Sullivan.                                                                                   
                                                    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 make the determinations that follow.                                                    
                       At the outset, we note that Appellant has indicated three headings for three                
                groupings for claims with respect to the first rejection and one heading for a single              
                grouping with respect to the second rejection.  We will address Appellants’ arguments              
                with respect to these four groupings.                                                              

                       From our review of the Examiner’s rejection, we find that the Examiner has set              
                forth a prima facie case of anticipation and in the alternative, a prima facie case of             
                obviousness of the claimed invention as set forth in the Answer at pages 4-6.  Therefore,          
                we look to Appellants’ brief for a persuasive argument as to error in the Examiner’s               
                prima facie cases.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                  
                1  We note that the paragraph setting forth the grounds of rejection does not include claims 29-36, but the
                body of the rejection includes a discussion of the basis for the rejection.  Therefore, we will address these
                claims as being rejected.                                                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007