Appeal 2006-0249
Application 10/315,401
The rejections under review are as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 31-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Inoue in view of any one of Singelyn, Kühl, or
Wozniczka;1
2. Claims 1 and 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Inoue in view of Osenar; and
3. Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
above evidence further in view of Schmid.
We have considered the issues on appeal in accordance with the
grouping of claims as evidenced by the separate headings within the
argument section of the Brief. Based on our review of the issues as
presented in the Answer and Brief, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-13, and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). However, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 35, and 36 under those statutory
grounds.
OPINION
The Rejections over Inoue in View of Singelyn, Kühl, and Wozniczka
Appellant argues claims 3, 4, 8, 31, 35 and 36 separately from claim
1. We, therefore, consider each of these claims separately.
Claim 1
The evidence supports a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to claim 1 and those claims stand or falling therewith. Inoue, as found by
1 Both Appellant and the Examiner refer to Wozniczka as GB ‘968.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007