Appeal No. 2006-0885
Application No. 10/168,883
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
references:
Kramer et al. (Kramer) 4,578,068 Mar. 25, 1986
Levy et al. 2 (Levy) 5,582,903 Dec. 10, 1996
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 8 and 14 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Levy and Kramer.
(Answer, pp. 3-4).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner
and Appellants in support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 8 and 14 to 16
are well founded. However, the rejection of claim 17 is not well founded.
Our reasons follow.
2 This reference was misidentified by the Examiner in the Answer.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007