Appeal 2007-1267
Application 09-967617
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sklar in view
of Nouri (6,484,213).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sklar in view
of Nouri in further view if Hassan.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sklar in view
of Friedman (6,154,501)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sklar in view
of Kikinis (6,289,389).
Claims 10, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Sklar in view of Turcotte (5,754,139).
Claims 14, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Lazaris-Brunner (6,266,329) in view of Sklar.
Claims 15, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Lazaris-Brunner in view of Sklar in further view of Knoblach
(2002/0072361).
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Sklar, or rendered obvious by Sklar in combination with the other
references noted, for failure of the references to teach the claimed elements,
which will be discussed more fully below. The Examiner contends that each
of the nine groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013