Appeal No. 2004-0532
Application No. 09/150,277
and Borchers discussed above. (Answer at 11-12.) Accordingly,
we cannot affirm this rejection for the same reasons discussed
above.
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (i) appealed claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 18, 20
through 22, and 24 through 26 as unpatentable over Chaiken in
view of Borchers; and (ii) appealed claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 13
through 17, and 23 as unpatentable over Chaiken in view of
Borchers and further in view of Gane.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Issues for Further Consideration
Prior to an allowance, the appellant and the examiner
should analyze whether the appealed claims, in particular claims
25 and 26, are patentable over the combined teachings of the
admitted prior art (specification, page 1, line 28 to page 2,
line 3) and Borchers.
In addition, the appellant and the examiner should analyze
whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶6, applies to claim 18. If so, the
appellant and the examiner should determine the identities of
the corresponding structures or equivalents defined by the
recited means-plus-function language and then analyze whether
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007