Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454
element “e” of appealed claim 1. Accordingly, we do not have to
address them.
In sum, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under: (i) 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 19,
and 21 as anticipated by Ramm; (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
appealed claims 1 through 8, 12, 14, and 19 through 21 as
unpatentable over Ramm; (iii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed
claims 9 through 11 and 15 as unpatentable over Ramm in view of
Straemke; (iv) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claim 13 as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Song; (v) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
of appealed claims 16 through 18 as unpatentable over Ramm in
view of Blalock; and (vi) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims
22 through 25 as unpatentable over Ramm in view of Ramalingam.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007