Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of
Layne and further in view of Wheeless. Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of Layne and Wong further
in view of Laughon. Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of Layne and Wong further in view of
Lipshutz. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Layne in view of Dehlinger and further in view of Wong. Claims 47 and 48 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of
Layne and Wong further in view of Wheeless.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
Appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by Appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have grouped the claims corresponding to
each of the separate rejections. We will address the arguments in the order presented in
the Brief.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007