Appeal No. 2005-1615
Application 09/800,535
The appellant argues that the combination of Ronen and Weber
is improper and that the examiner used improper hindsight
reconstruction (brief, pages 13-15; reply brief, pages 5-6), but
the appellant provides no reasoning in support of those
arguments.
For the above reasons we conclude that the invention claimed
in the appellant’s claim 19 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claims 1,
2, 4-6, 8-18, 20-46, 48, 50 and 52-59 that stand or fall
therewith.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-
13, 15-27, 29-41, 43-46, 48, 50, 52, 53 and 58 over Ronen in view
of Weber, and claims 14, 28, 42, 54-57 and 59 over Ronen in view
of Weber and Elgamal, are affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007