Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
2) Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Clawson and Narumiya;
3) Claims 1 through 6, 9 through 12 and 16 through 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya and Setzer ‘484;
4) Claims 13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer
‘484 and Sheller;
5) Claims 1, 7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya and
Setzer ‘578; and
6) Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Setzer ‘578 and Narumiya.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that only the
examiner’s Section 103 rejections drawn to claims 1 through 7, 9
through 12, 16 through 19, 21 and 22 are well founded.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007