Appeal No. 2005-0074
Application No. 09/739,080
The following rejections have been presented for our review
in this appeal:1
(1) claims 33, 34, 39 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by OrdaCard (Answer, page 4);
(2) claims 33 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Provost (Answer, page 5);
(3) claims 33 and 49 stand rejected under § 102(b) as
anticipated by Watanabe (id.);
(4) claims 33 and 49 stand rejected under § 102(b) as
anticipated by D’Entremont (id.);
(5) claims 33-36, 39 and 49 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of OrdaCard and Knowlton (id.);
and
(6) claims 33-36 and 49 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Provost and Knowlton
(Answer, page 6).
Based on the totality of the record, we affirm all of the
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer and those reasons set forth below.
1
1The rejection of claims 34 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
over Provost has been withdrawn by the examiner (Answer, page 2,
¶(3)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007