Appeal No. 2007-0151
Application No. 10/081,132
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Chang US 2002/0122415A1 Sep. 5, 2002
(filed Mar. 1, 2001)
Patel US 2002/0174345 A1 Nov. 21, 2002
(filed May 17, 2001)
Olshansky US 6,493,437 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
(filed Apr. 26, 2000)
Trandal US 2003/0081752 A1 May 1, 2003
(filed Nov. 1, 2001)
The Examiner’s Official Notice.
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olshansky, Trandal, and Patel.
2. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olshansky, Trandal, Chang, and Patel.
3. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olshansky, Trandal, Chang, Patel, and the Official Notice
taken by the Examiner.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made
but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013