Appeal No. 2006-3181
Application No. 10/253,442
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Cox. Claims 16-19 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness,
the Examiner offers Cox in view of Bader with respect to claims
16-18, and Cox in view of Husby with respect to claim 19.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Cox reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 12-15 and 20. With respect to the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection, we are also of the view that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
1 The Appeal Brief was filed February 21, 2006. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 25, 2006, a Reply Brief was
filed June 26, 2006 which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner as indicated in the communication mailed August 3, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013