Appeal No. 2006-0780
Application No. 10/331,716
C) Claims 1-3, 8-9, 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Benham in view of Endo.
D) Claims 4-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Benham, Endo and Evans.
E) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Benham, Endo and
Gallaro.
F) Claims 1, 48 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Libman.
G) Claims 10, 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Libman and
Rasmussen ‘773.
H) Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Libman, Rasmussen ‘773
and Rasmussen ‘750.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above noted
rejections, we make reference to the Answer (mailed September
1, 2005) for the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the Brief (filed June 17, 2005) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007