Appeal No. 2004-1259
Application No. 09/832,355
17, 18, 32-34, 41, and 43-46 for obviousness is affirmed.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the enablement and written description rejections except for that of
claim 12, which we affirm. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 16-19, 32-34, 39-40
and 43-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), as anticipated by Davis; and the rejection of
claims 1-5, 9, 17, 18, 32-34, 41 and 43-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over
Yoon in view of either or both of Gill and Rockwell. In view of our decision in this
appeal, claims 6, and 7 are not rejected.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
DONALD E. ADAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
DEMETRA J. MILLS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ERIC GRIMES )
Administrative Patent Judge )
28
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007