Appeal No. 2002-2132
Application 09/124,907
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 through 19, and
dependent claims 4, 9 through 11 and 13, as being anticipated by
Duckett.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Claims 3, 5 through 8, 12, 14 and 20 through 22 depend
variously from independent claims 1 and 17 through 19. In short,
the examiner’s application of Duckett alone or in combination
with Huber, the admitted prior art, Neal and/or Kirkpatrick does
not account for the “biased” limitation in parent claims 1 and 17
through 19.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 5 as being unpatentable over Duckett, the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Duckett in view of Huber and the admitted prior
art, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 12 as
being unpatentable over Duckett in view of the admitted prior
art, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 6, 7
and 20 through 22 as being unpatentable over Duckett in view of
Neal, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 14 as
being unpatentable over Duckett in view of Kirkpatrick.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007