Appeal 2007-0554
Reexamination Nos. 90/006,118 & 90/006,254
Patent 6,196,681 B1
September 28, 2001, and 90/006,254, filed March 26, 2002, for
reexamination of Canavan, U.S. Patent 6,196,681, which issued March 6,
2001, from Application 09/573,577, filed May 18, 2000. Claims 1-8, all the
claims of the patent, stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view
of various combinations of the prior art indicated below:
Fecteau US 5,825,455 Oct. 20, 1998
(applied against Claims 1-8);
Bolle US 5,841,505 Nov. 24, 1998
(applied against Claim 5);
Chiang US 5,867,841 Feb. 9, 1999
(applied against Claims 2, 4 and 5);
Lin US 5,903,331 May 11, 1999
(applied against Claim 3); and
Conway WO 99/56942 Nov. 11, 1999
(applied against Claims 1-8).
Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of the subject
matter defined by any one of Claims 6 to 8 from the patentability of Claim 1.
However, Appellant has argued that none of the references applied to
dependent Claims 2-5 describe the further limitations thereof, and no
combination of the prior art applied to Claims 2-5 would have suggested an
invention defined by any one of Claims 2-5. Accordingly, we shall consider
the patentability of the subject matter defined by each of Claims 2, 3, 4, and
5 separately from the patentability of the subject matter more broadly
defined by Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). On the other hand, we deem
Claims 6-8 to stand or fall with Claim 1.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013