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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007