Appeal No. 2002-0515
Application No. 09/222,092
subject matter of claims 3-5, 8, 10 and 16-18 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art from the combined teachings of the cited prior art for the reasons
stated above and in the Answer.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11-15, 19 and 20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by DeVries; claim 3 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of DeVries and
Bolton; claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of DeVries and Duclos; claims 5, 8, 10 and 18 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeVries and Burchill; and claims 16 and 17 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over DeVries and Barrera are
affirmed.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007