Appeal No. 2005-0509 Page 12
Application No. 09/449,237
and advise” (answer at page 10). The Roth reference in combination with the
Baker and Szabo patents fails to cure the deficiencies of Baker and Szabo noted
above with respect to claim 86. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 81, 82, 85, and 93, and we have not sustained the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 83-84, 86-92, and 95-97.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM/lbg
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007