Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
regard, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reliance on the additionally
cited prior art teachings as cited in Rejections Q, R, and S for teaching or
suggesting the additional claimed features associated with the claims
subjected to Rejections Q, R, and S. Rather, Appellants' arguments are
principally based on the asserted shortcomings of Mancusi to teach or
suggest two potting steps as further buttressed by Appellants’ reliance on the
Runkle Declaration.
For the reasons discussed above, those arguments and their asserted
evidentiary support are unpersuasive. Hence, we shall also affirm: (1) the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Mancusi, Bikson, and Caskey
(Rejection Q); (2) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-24, 26, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of
Mancusi, Bikson, and Applicants’ admitted prior art (Rejection R); and the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang in view of Mancusi, Bikson, Applicants’ admitted
prior art, and Caskey.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
18
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013