Appeal No. 2004-0653
Application No. 09/872,053
Claims 1, 13, 18 and 22 through 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furay in view of
Baxter.
Claims 2, 21 and 29 through 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Furay in view of
Baxter as applied above, and further in view of Dague.1
Claims 19, 20 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Furay in view of Baxter as applied
above, and further in view of Wu.
Claim 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Furay in view of Baxter and Dague as applied to
claim 33 above, and further in view of Wu.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
1 We observe that since claims 22 through 27 mentioned in
the examiner's first rejection above are dependent from claim 2,
it would appear that they should also have been rejected based on
the combined teachings of Furay, Baxter and Dague, rather than
merely Furay in view of Baxter.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007