Appeal No. 2004-2034
Application No. 09/917,096
Appealed claims 1-9, 11 and 14-18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of
Jeantette. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the stated combination of
references further in view of Parks. In addition, claims 19 and
20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lewis in view of Jeantette and Singer.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at page
3 of appellants’ brief, the following groups of claims stand or
fall together:
I. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 17;
II. Claims 2 and 15;
III. Claims 3 and 16;
IV. Claims 6 and 18.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as his cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejections for the reasons set forth in the answer, which we
incorporate herein, and we add the following for emphasis only.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007