Appeal 2007-0961
Application 10/264,131
Daniel1 FR 2,652,185 Mar. 22, 1991
Takahashi US 5,638,093 Jun. 10, 1997
Linford US 5,687,259 Nov. 11, 1997
Lys US 6,166,496 Dec. 26, 2000
Kojima US 6,313,816 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
The rejections that are maintained by the Examiner (see Answer):
1. Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Daniel.2
2. Claims 1-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Daniel and Lys.
3. Claims 10, 12, 13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Daniel, Lys, and Linford.
4. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sandbank and Lys.
5. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sandbank, Lys, and Takahashi or over Daniel, Lys,
and Takahashi.
6. Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Daniel, Lys, Takahashi, and Linford.
1 Daniel Kaplan et al. We will follow the Examiner’s and Appellants’
convention of referring to the reference as “Daniel.”
2 The Final Rejection and the Brief refer to a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e), but the Answer and the Reply Brief recognize that the publication
is a reference under § 102(b).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013