Appeal No. 2004-2148
Application No. 09/362,397
of claims 128 and 129 over the combined teachings of Challener and
Kugler; and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 136, 141 and
142 over the combined teachings of Challener and Tawara. However, we
reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of 92, 93 and 106 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Challener
and Tawara; the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 94, 95 and 98
to 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Challener, Tawara and Kluger; the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) of claims 96 and 97 over the combined teachings of Challener,
Tawara, Kluger and Signer; and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 121 and 122 over the combined teachings of Challener and Sproul.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant concerning the above-noted rejection, we
refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner
and Appellant in support of their respective positions.
Our initial inquiry is directed to the scope of the claimed subject
matter. During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007