Appeal No. 2006-0895
Application No. 09/902,515
discloses all the claimed limitations, the anticipation rejection
of claims 9, 12 and 14 over Carr is also sustained.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 2, 3, 6-8 10, 11, 15,
16, 23, 24 and 27-29
With respect to the remaining claims, the Examiner further
relies on Unger and Ackley while Appellant’s arguments in support
of patentability of these claims include assertions similar to
those addressed above with respect to claims 1, 9 and 22.
Considering the arguments presented and addressed above, we find
the Examiner’s position to be sufficiently reasonable to support
a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 23 and 24 over Carr
and Unger and of claims 6-8, 15 and 27-29 over Carr, Unger and
Ackley is sustained.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007