Appeal No. 2005-0214
Application No. 09/742,653
I. Claims 31-33, 35-40, 42, 46-52, 55, and 59 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Rusincovitch.
II. Claims 31-33, 35-40, 42, 43, 46-52, 55, and 59 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Calhoun
‘790 in view of Rusincovitch.
III. Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Rusincovitch and further in
view of Plamthottam.
IV. Claims 54 and 56-58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view Rusincovitch and further
in view of Calhoun ‘178.
V. Claims 60-62, 66-72 and 74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Torobin.
VI. Claims 63-65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Torobin, and further in view
of British Patent 1,511,060.
VII. Claims 73 and 75-77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Calhoun ‘790 in view of Torobin and further in
view of Calhoun ‘178.
On page 4 of the brief, appellant states that the claims
stand or fall together, but on pages 12-13, argues claim 60
separately. We select and confine our discussion to claims 31
and 60. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003).
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief, and reply
brief, and the examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007