Appeal No. 2005-0661
Application No. 09/894,480
dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20, as being
anticipated by Heath.
II. The obviousness rejections of claims 4 through 7, 11 through
14 and 17
As the examiner’s application of Rao, Puro, Ottesen and/or
Chin does not cure the foregoing deficiencies of Heath relative
the subject matter recited in parent claims 1, 8 and 15, we also
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 4 and 11 as being unpatentable over Heath in
view of Rao and Puro, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 5, 6, 12, 13 and 17 as being unpatentable
over Heath in view of Ottesen, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 7 and 14 as being unpatentable over
Heath in view of Chin.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through
8, 10 through 15, 17, 19 and 20 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007