Appeal 2007-1472
Application 10/440,770
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Malmstrom US 5,901,359 May 4, 1999
Pulver US 6,741,835 B2 May 25, 2004
(filed Jan. 11, 2002)
Torrey US 6,751,462 B1 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Aug. 19, 2002)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Torrey.
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torrey in view of Malmstrom.
Claims 4-9 and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Torrey in view of Pulver.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 13, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed
September 20, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed February 13, 2007) for the
arguments thereagainst.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013