Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
20. Claims 64-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Novik in view of Duso and Resnikoff.
21. Claim 69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novik
in view of Duso and Resnikoff and further in view of Mason.
22. Claim 70 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Novik
in view of Liew.
23. Claims 71-74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Carnahan in view of Mason and Mack.
24. Claims 74 and 75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Carnahan in view of Mason and Mack and further in view of Ito.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference to the
briefs and the answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by
the
examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale
in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007