Appeal No. 2005-0582
Application 09/870,014
(b) claims 16, 18, 19 and 21 over the references cited in
(a) above, further in view of Beyer;
(c) claim 20 over the references cited in (a) above, further
in view of Cook;
(d) claims 1, 2, 7-9, 15, 22 and 24 over Hamasaki in view of
Steen and Galantino ‘866;
(e) claims 16, 18, 19 and 21 over Hamasaki in view of Steen,
Galantino ‘866, and Beyer; and
(f) claim 20 over Hamasaki in view of Steen, Galantino ‘866
and Cook.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 3 of appellants’ Brief, all of the appealed claims stand or
fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007