Appeal No. 2006-1778
Application 09/776,364
complementary nature of the teachings of both Gartner and Fitting are compelling of
the obviousness of combining them. Lastly, the bulk of appellant’s arguments in the
briefs relating to the fourth and fifth stated rejections relying upon Gartner and Fitting,
and additionally Walls, treat only the teachings of Gartner alone without a
corresponding consideration of the teachings of Fitting.
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 2 but not the
rejection of claims 5 through 13 in the first stated rejection relying upon Slutz in view
of Fujimori. We have reversed the second stated rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, 17
through 19, 23, 24, and 27 through 32, relying on Slutz in view Fujimori, further in
view of Talley. Likewise, we have reverse the third stated rejection of claims 20, 21,
25 and 26 relying upon Slutz in view of Fujimori and Talley, further in view of Walls.
On the other hand, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1 through 14, 17 through
19, 23, 24, and 27 through 32, relying upon Gartner in view of Fitting. Likewise, we
have sustained the separate rejection of claims 20, 21, 25 and 26 in the fifth stated
rejection relying upon Gartner in view of Fitting, further in view of Walls. Since we
have sustained at least one rejection for each claim on appeal, the decision of the
examiner rejecting all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C 103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007