Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/225,395
descriptive support in the specification, as filed. Claims 1, 3,
6-8, 15, 24, 27 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis. Claims 4-9,
14, 16-23, 25, 26, 29, 31-33 and 37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urban in view of
Valaitis and Yokono. Claims 10, 34, 36 and 38-42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urban in view
of Valaitis, Yokono, and Saruwatari (JP 54-037181) or Smyers.
Claims 11, 13 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis and Kwei.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and
the examiner concerning the issues before us on this appeal.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner's obviousness determinations in the
§ 103(a) rejections before us. However, we are not persuaded by
the examiner’s determination of a lack of descriptive support in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007