Appeal No. 2005-1630 Page 7
Application No. 10/665,752
Claims 6 is dependent on claim 1. Therefore, we will sustain this rejection as it is
directed to claim 6 for the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Claims 19 and 37 are dependent on claims 14 and 32 respectively. We have
examined the disclosure of Deitl and have determined that Deitl does not supply the
teaching regarding bringing the screen into contact with the interconnect inlet port found
missing in the disclosures of Soga and Ma. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 19 and 37.
In conclusion, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 7.
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 to 38
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007