Appeal No. 2004-0275
Application No. 09/09/318,186
and not a parallel library, as Welch discloses and is relied on for its use of a
parallel library.
In view of above, the rejections of claims 60-65, 67, 69, 71, 74 and 80
over Welch, Liu and Weingarten are affirmed. The rejections of claims 60 and 77
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welch, Liu, and
Weingarten, in view of Lam, and claims 60-65, 67-69, 71 and 74 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welch, Liu, and Weingarten in view of
Pirkle, also fall with claim 60 based upon the primary combination of references.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 60-65, 67, 69, 71, 74 and 80 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) for obviousness over Welch in view of Liu and further in view of
Weingarten is affirmed.
The rejections of claims 60 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Welch, Liu, and Weingarten, in view of Lam, and claims 60-65,
67-69, 71 and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Welch,
Liu, and Weingarten in view of Pirkle, also fall with claim 60 based upon the
primary combination of references and are affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007