Appeal Number: 2006-3073
Application Number: 10/033,151
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 21, 23, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Filler and Yu.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Beuk.
The appellants argue that claim 4 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1
(Br. 13), and we find this unpersuasive for the reasons we recited, supra.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Beuk.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Peppel.
The appellants argue that claim 13 is patentable for the same reasons as claim 1
(Br. 13), and we find this unpersuasive for the reasons we recited, supra.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Peppel.
Claims 8 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and
Treyz.
The appellants argue that claims 8 and 24 are patentable for the same reasons
as claims 1 and 21 (Br. 13), and we find this unpersuasive for the reasons we
recited, supra. Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Treyz.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Atsmon.
The appellants argue that claim 22 is patentable for the same reasons as claim
21 (Br. 14), and we find this unpersuasive for the reasons we recited, supra.
Accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu and Atsmon.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013