Appeal No. 2006-1204
Application No. 10/379,006
References
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Mooney et al. 6,087,847 July 11, 2000
Rejections At Issue
A. Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13, 14, 22, 24, 25, 50 and 55 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Mooney et
al.
B. Claims 40 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mooney et al.
Rather than reiterating the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Brief2
and the Examiner’s Answer3. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments,
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief have not been taken into consideration. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have likewise
2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on June 06, 2005.
3 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on August 26, 2005.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007