Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/155,740
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Reznik 3,741,106 Jun. 26, 1973
Hsieh et al. (Hsieh) 4,917,910 Apr. 17, 1990
Savage UK 1,004,522 Sep. 15, 1965
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reznik in view of Hsieh and Savage.
OPINION
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief and the evidence of
record, appellants have not persuaded us of reversible error on
the part of the examiner in concluding that the appealed claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention within the meaning of
§ 103(a). Accordingly, we will affirm the examiner’s obviousness
rejection.
Appellants present four groups of claims at page 4 of the
brief:
Group I: claim 1;
Group II: claims 2-5, 9-13 and 17;
Group III: claims 6-8 and 14-16; and
Group IV: claims 18 and 19.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007