Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 22
‘289; to reject claims 38-40, 42 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Ness ‘289; to reject claims 38, 44, 45
and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Simmons
as further evidenced by Binter; to reject claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view
of Newarski; to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view of Simmons; to reject claims
19-28, 32-34 and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view of Ward and Smith; to reject
claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ness
‘289 in view of Ward, Smith and Stegath; to reject claim 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view
of Ward, Smith and Simmons; to reject claim 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view of Ward,
Smith and Newarski; and to reject claims 41 and 43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ness ‘289 in view
of Newarski is reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007