Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Brzozowski US 4,470,711 Sep. 11, 1984
4 Ballman US 5,188,542 Feb. 23, 1993
5 Warden US 5,567,175 Oct. 22, 1996
6 Brady US 5,786,626 Jul. 28, 1998
7 Black US 6,412,977 Jul. 2, 2002
8 Stanescu US 6,784,802 Aug. 31, 2004
9
10 Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, and 19-212 stand rejected under 35
11 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ballman in view of Stanescu and
12 Black (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 33).
13 Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
14 unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Warden (Final Rejection 3
15 and Answer 5).
16 Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
17 unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Brzozowski (Final
18 Rejection 4 and Answer 5).
19 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
20 unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Brady (Final Rejection 4
21 and Answer 5).
FCI Americas Technology, Inc.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 6, 10, 11, 16 and 18
(Answer at 9).
3 We refer to the 22 December 2006 Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013