Appeal No. 2006-0537 Page 2
Application No. 09/753,766
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Bondi et al. (Bondi) 5,881,277 Mar. 09, 1999
Parady 5,933,627 Aug. 03, 1999
Borkenhagen et al. (Borkenhagen) 6,567,831 May 20, 2003
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Parady in view of Bondi as
to claims 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 14 and 15, with the addition of Borkenhagen
as to claims 5, 10 through 13 and 16 through 19.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner,
reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been filed) for the appellants’
positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Based upon the extensive analysis, set forth in the examiner’s rather
lengthy, well-reasoned answer, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as embellished upon here.
At the outset, we note that pages 3 through 10 of the brief set forth
arguments only as to independent claims 1, 8 and 14 as well as dependent
claims 2, 3 and 4 in the first stated rejection. On the other hand, as to the
second stated rejection, appellants indicate at the bottom of page 10 of the brief
that the rejection of the noted dependent claims must fail because of the above-
noted deficiencies with respect of the combination of Parady and Bondi as to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007