Appeal No. 2006-0859
Application No. 09/778,338
VIII. Whether the Rejection of Claims 9 and 10 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claims 9 and 10. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellants refer back to the argument of
claim 3 with respect to the Neumann reference. We again find that argument
unpersuasive for the reasons given above.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
IX. Whether the Rejection of Claim 11 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art the invention as set forth in claim 11. Accordingly, we affirm.
With respect to dependent claim 11, Appellants refer back to the argument of
claim 5 with respect to the Neumann reference. We again find that argument
unpersuasive for the reasons given above.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Other Issues
The following references are considered to be information material to
patentability of the present and any related patent applications.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007