Appeal No. 2006-1544
Application 10/024,621
matter on appeal and a copy of those claims can be found in the Claims Appendix attached
to appellants’ brief.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Nordbye 3,936,957 Feb. 10, 1976
Williams 3,968,661 Jul. 13, 1976
Shim 2003/0078854 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Maloney et al. WO 01/18674 A2 Mar. 15, 2001
(Maloney)
Claims 1 through 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement. In the examiner’s view, these claims contain
subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make
and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 4 through 6, 9 through 15, 17 through 20, 24 through 27, 29 through 36, 43
through 47, 51 through 53, 56, 59 through 62 and 64 through 67 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Maloney.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 16, 28, 37 through 42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 63, 68 and 69 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maloney in view of Shim.
Claims 21 through 23 and 48 through 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maloney in view of Shim, further in view of Nordbye and Williams.1
1 As noted on page 4 of the examiner’s answer, the rejection
of claims 1 through 55 and 67 through 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
set forth in the final rejection has now been withdrawn.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007