Appeal No. 2005-1186 Page 3
Application No. 09/746,872
Claims 1-7 and 10-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as
being obvious over Krzysik in view of Klofta, and further in view
of Beerse.
The examiner relied upon the following references for
patentability.
Krzysik et al. (Kryzik) 6,149,934 Nov. 21,2000
Klofta et al. (Klofta) 6,238,682 May 29, 2001
Beerse et al. (Beerse) 6,294,186 Sep. 25, 2001
Appellants have grouped the claims into two groupings, as set
forth at the top of page 7 of the Brief. In accordance therein, we
consider claims 1 and 21 in this appeal. See former regulation 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2004) and compare current regulation 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 13, 2004). Also see Ex parte Schier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ brief, the
examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record. This review has led
us to conclude that the examiner’s rejection is well-founded.
OPINION
I. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 10-34, 37-41, 43,
45-47, and 49-57 as being obvious over Krzysik in view of
Klofta, and further in view of Beerse
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth at
pages 3-5 of the answer.
Appellants’ essential arguments, as set forth on pages 6-11 of
the brief, include (1) that the examiner has failed to identify how
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007