Appeal No. 2006-0167
Application No. 10/186,263
briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through
10, 14 through 23 and 27under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). However, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejections of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Grouping of the claims.
At the outset, we note that appellant’s arguments group the claims in two
(2) groups. On pages 4 and 5 of the brief appellant provides arguments directed
to claims 1 through 10, 14 through 23 and 27. On page 6 of the brief, appellant
provides arguments as to why the limitations common to claims 11 and 24 are
not taught by Chang. Accordingly, we will address these claims as grouped by
appellant’s arguments.
Rejection of claims 1 through 10, 14 through 23 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellant argues, on page 5 of the brief, that the examiner has not
addressed the limitation “without affecting the functional design process” in
rejecting the claims. Further, appellant argues:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007