Appeal No. 2005-2652
Application No. 10/066,990
Gehlsen et al. (Gehlsen) 6,103,152 Aug. 15, 2000
Mochizuki et al. (Mochizuki) 6,139,998 Oct. 31, 2000
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 12 and 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Gehlsen and Parsons. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Gehlsen, Parsons and Bonk. Claim 23 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Gehlsen, Parsons and Mochizuki.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 103 rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s Section 103 rejections for
the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer and
below.
Under Section 103, the obviousness of an invention cannot be
established by combining the teachings of the prior art
references absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive
−4−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007