Appeal No. 2006-0467
Application No. 10/063,004
PRIOR ART
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter,
the examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Feuerherd et al. (Feuerherd) 5,130,356 Jul. 14, 1992
Landin et al. (Landin) 5,538,774 Jul. 23, 1996
Sandstrom 5,972,461 Oct. 26, 1999
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 15 and 18 through 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Feuerherd and Sandstrom. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Feuerherd, Sandstrom, and Landin.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s § 103 rejections are not well founded. Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejections. Our reasons for this
determination follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007