Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 21
Application No. 10/225,395
affirming the rejection of claim 27, we shall also affirm the
examiner’s separate § 103(a) rejection of claims 11, 13 and 28
over Urban in view of Valaitis and Kwei.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6-29,
31-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as including subject
matter that lacks descriptive support in the specification, as
filed, is reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1, 3, 6-8, 15, 24, 27 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis; to reject
claims 4-9, 14, 16-23, 25, 26, 29, 31-33 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis and
Yokono; to reject claims 10, 34, 36 and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis,
Yokono, and Saruwatari (JP 54-037181) or Smyers; and to reject
claims 11, 13 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Urban in view of Valaitis and Kwei is affirmed.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007