Appeal 2007-3322
Application 09/947,094
supra, is misplaced. No proper rationale has been articulated to support the
conclusion of obviousness. The rejection of claim 31 is therefore in error.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 8, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rand is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rand is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, 18, 20-24, 26-28, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rand and Blalock is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rand and Hochstein is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rand, Blalock, and Hochstein is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hochstein is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Hochstein is reversed.
The rejection of claims 6, 9, 10, 18, 20-24, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Hochstein and Blalock is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013