Appeal No. 2005-1539 11
Application No. 09/799,275
unpatentable over Latour, Barker and Gremillion, and Latour in view of Gremillion,
respectively.
In accordance with the foregoing discussions, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part. That is, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Barker, claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Latour, and claims 8, 9, 16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Latour in view of Barker, is affirmed, while that to
reject claims 14, 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barker
in view of Stanek, claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Latour
in view of Stanek, claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Latour
in view of Barker and Gremillion, and claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Latour in view of Gremillion, is not.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007