Appeal No. 2006-0132
Application No. 09/946,627
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or was since "known ... by others" in this
country before the invention by the applicant within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See the Answer, pages 28-30 and the
Response to the Remand dates October 12, 2005, pages 1-2. Even
if Wanthal was not treated as “prior art” within the meaning of
section 102(a) or 102(b), the examiner opined that the other
prior art references relied upon would have led a person having
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed subject matter within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See the Answer, pages 14-36.
This appeal ensued.
EVIDENCE
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
support of the section 103(a) rejections before us are:
Abildskov (deceased) 4,782,864 Nov. 8, 1988
Hertzberg 4,966,802 Oct. 30, 1990
Boyce et al. (Boyce) 5,800,672 Sep. 1, 1998
Campbell et al. (Campbell) 5,827,383 Oct. 27, 1998
Childress 5,863,635 Jan. 26, 1999
Alston et al. (Alston) 5,868,886 Feb. 9, 1999
Barnes et al. (Barnes) 6,007,894 Dec. 28, 1999
Sloman et al. (Sloman) WO 98/50214 Nov. 12, 1998
(Published International Patent Application under PCT)
Breuer et al. (Breuer) DE 198 32 441 Jan. 5, 2000
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007