Appeal Number: 2006-2502
Application Number: 09/768,434
REJECTIONS
Claims 1and 14 through 191 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Challener.
Claims 2, 3, 8 through 10 and 202 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Challener.
Claims 4 through 7and 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Challener and Colligan.
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 Mar. 27, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed Oct. 19, 2005) and reply brief (filed May 9,
2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
1 Claims 15 and 16 are not included in the formal declaration of the statutory basis
of the rejection (Answer 3), but are included in the analysis (Answer 4) and are
therefore treated as part of the rejection.
2 Claim 20 is not included in the formal declaration of the statutory basis of the
rejection (Answer 5), but is included in the analysis (Answer 7) and is therefore
treated as part of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013