Appeal No. 2006-3042
Application No. 10/720,494
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Amro.
3. Claims 3-6, 9-14, 18, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Amro in view of Wu.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant's
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Amro does not fully meet the invention of claims 1, 8, 17, and 24-
30. We also conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 3-6, 9-14, 18, and 31.
Accordingly, we reverse.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013