Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chatelot and
Ogita. Claims 5-13, 25, 47-60, and 62-64 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carroll alone.
Claims 14-17, 61, and 64-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of McFarlane.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (dated April 23, 2004,
Paper No. 8) and Answer (mailed July 1, 2004, Paper No. 9) for the
respective details.
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 prior art rejections. After reviewing and taking into
consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along
with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer, we
affirm-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007