Appeal No. 2006-0811
Application No. 10/323,510
in view of Hankins; and claims 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bingo in view of Adkison.
OPINION
The rejections of claims 1-4, 9-11, 14 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Adkison, claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Adkison in view of Hankins, claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Adkison in view of McAllister, and claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adkison in view of Corday, are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 1, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Bingo, claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Adkison in
view of Hankins, claims 21, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Bingo in view of Hankins, and claims 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Bingo in view of Adkison, are reversed.
We address the claims separately to the extent justified by
the appellant’s arguments. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).1
1 Although additional references are applied to claims 7
and 8, the appellant does not provide a substantive argument as
to the separate patentability of those claims (brief, page 12).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007