Appeal No. 2004-1252
Application No. 09/705,710
b) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 30
through 42, 44, 47, 48 and 51 through 55 as being unpatentable
over Ragard;
c) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 43,
45 and 46 as being unpatentable over Ragard in view of Tamano;
d) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 45,
46 and 56 as being unpatentable over Ragard in view of Kirsch;
e) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 49
through 51 as being unpatentable over Ragard in view of Tamano
and Holcomb; or
d) the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 49,
50 and 57 as being unpatentable over Ragard in view of in view of
Kirsch and Holcomb.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007