Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
3. Claims 2, 13, 26 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Winn, Lam,
Reichert and Baker ‘766 and Kimball;
4. Claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker ‘766
and Baker ‘362;
5. Claims 24 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker ‘766
and York; and
6. Claims 23 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker ‘766
and Mattei.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both
the examiner and appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
§ 103 rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejections for essentially those
reasons set forth in the Brief. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007