Appeal No. 2006-0600 3
Application No. 10/163,249
Claims 25 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over McLaughlin in view of Dawda and
Cummings.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the appellant and examiner regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (mailed August 31, 2005) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief
(filed July 6, 2005) and reply brief (filed October 27, 2005) for
the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In making the rejection of claims 1 through 4, 6, 7 and 9
based on the combined teachings of Overby, Dawda and Cummings
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007