Appeal 2006-2311
Application 10/676,593
view of Staler; (2) the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 16, and 20 over
Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and Staler; and (3) the § 103(a) rejection of
claims 10 and 19 over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and further in view
of Finley, West, or Bates. Rather, Appellants contend that these rejections
should be reversed for the same reasons that the rejections of independent
claims 1, 9, and 15 should be reversed (Br. 4, 7).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding independent
claims 1, 9, and 15 for the reasons indicated above. Therefore, for the same
reasons, we affirm: the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 8 over
Adkins, II in view of Staler; the §103(a) rejection of claims 11, 16, and 20
over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and Staler; and the § 103(a) rejection
of claims 10 and 19 over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and further in
view of Finley, West, or Bates.
DECISION
We have affirmed the §§ 102(b)/103(a) rejections of claims 1-3, and 7
over Adkins, II.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 6 and 8 over
Adkins, II in view of Staler.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Adkins, II in
view of Finley, West, or Bates.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 9, 12-15, 17, and 18
over Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 16, and 20 over
Longo, Sr. in view of Adkins, II and Staler.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013