Appeal No. 2005-1582
Application No. 09/682,176
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Cherukuri et al. (Cherukuri) 4,753,805 Jun. 28, 1988
Ream et al. (Ream) 5,318,784 Jun. 07, 1994
Athanikar et al. (Athanikar) 6,322,828 Nov. 27, 2001
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
I. Claims 1-7, 9-15, 17, 18, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cherukuri.
II. Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ream
in view of Cherukuri or Athanikar.
III. Claims 8, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cherukuri in view of Ream.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections are well founded. Our reasons follow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
the Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and the
Briefs.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007