Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
being anticipated by O’Rourke. Lastly, claims 4 through 6, 8,
14 through 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Tekalp in view
of O’Rourke.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the Answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
We sustain the separately stated rejections of claims 1
through 3, 11 through 13 and 21 through 26 for the reasons set
forth by the examiner in the Answer as embellished upon here.
On the other hand, we reverse the rejection of all claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103 generally for the reasons established by
appellants in the Brief as to this rejection.
We are unpersuaded by appellants’ arguments as to the first
stated rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 11 through 13 as
being anticipated by Tekalp as set forth at pages 4 through 7
of the Brief and pages 2 and 3 of the Reply Brief. The common
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007