Appeal No. 2005-2512
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,431
Manual (excluding RailMill and associated use of ChipViewer) and reversed to the
extent based on Rusu in view of Tiwary or Deng.
M. The rejection of Claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) over either of Stark
and Rusu in view of any of the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill
disclosures),
Tiwary, and Deng and further in view of Noguchi
Appellant does not separately argue the merits of claims 10 and 11, instead
arguing that they are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1, on which they depend
through claim 9. Br. 32-33. The rejection of claims 10 and 11 is therefore affirmed
for the reasons given above for affirming the rejections of claims 1 and 9 based on
either of Stark and Rusu considered in view of the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill
and associated use of ChipViewer). 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(vii).
N. Summary
The only grounds of rejection which we have affirmed are:
(a) The rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 16-18 under § 103(a) for obviousness over
Stark in view of the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill disclosures);
(b) The rejection of claims 1-6, 9, and 16-18 under § 103(a) over Rusu in view of
the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill disclosures); and
(c) The rejection of claims 10 and 11 under § 103(a) over either of Stark and
Rusu in
view of the Arcadia Manual (excluding RailMill disclosures) and further in view of
Noguchi.
54
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007