Appeal No. 2006-0059 Page 5
Application No. 10/139,397
The Examiner entered the following rejections (Answer, pp. 10-18):
Claims 28-34, 36-39, 41, 44, 51, 77, 78, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bradshaw in view of Roou or Stahl, and Koyama.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradshaw,
Roou or Stahl and Koyama as applied to claim 30, and further in view of Dresser.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradshaw,
Roou or Stahl and Koyama as applied to claim 29, and further in view of Evans.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradshaw,
Roou or Stahl and Koyama as applied to claim 29, and further in view of the admitted
prior art.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradshaw,
Roou or Stahl and Koyama as applied to claim 29, and further in view of Britz.
Claims 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Bradshaw, Koyama, Roou or Stahl, and Britz as applied to claim 47, and further in
view of Shastko.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bradshaw,
Roou or Stahl and Koyama, and Britz as applied to claim 47, and further in view of
Matthews.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007