Appeal No. 2006-0362
Application No. 09/455,201
Gratacap et al. (Gratacap) 6,292,490 Sep. 18, 2001
(filed Jan. 14, 1998)
Hodge 2002/0007494 A1 Jan. 17, 2002
(eff. filed Sep. 28, 1998)
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23 and 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hodge in view of Dureau.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, 17, 21 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hodge in view of
Dureau and Gratacap.
Claims 5, 9, 13, 18, 22 and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hodge in view of
Dureau and Wang.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed August 9,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the revised brief “brief” (filed April 29,
2005) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
Παγε 4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007