Appeal No. 2004-0070
Application No. 10/047,529
Kahkoska et al. (Kahkoska) 6,002,671 Dec. 14, 1999
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Feiner in view of Emerson or Kahkoska.
Claims 3-6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Feiner in view of Emerson and further in view of Bjork.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Feiner in view of Emerson and further in view of Bliven or Soderberg.
Claims 10-12, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Feiner in view of Siu.
Claims 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Feiner in view of Siu and further in view of Bjork.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 4) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 11) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 10) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 12) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Appellants submit that the Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 18, and 19 is
in error because the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007