Appeal 2006-0931
Application 10/312,054
PRIOR ART REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in support of the
rejections before us are:
Carbonell US 5,045,190 Sep. 3, 1991
Bergrund WO 99/65607 Dec. 23, 1999
REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 8, 12, 13, 16 through 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by the disclosure of Carbonell; and
2) Claims 1 through 12, 14, 16 through 20, and 30 through 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by the disclosure of Bergrund.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification, and prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and the Appellants
in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
Examiner’s § 102 rejections are well-founded. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under § 102 for essentially the
factual findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We add the following
primarily for emphasis and completeness.1
1 The Appellants’ arguments are directed to only claims 1 and 22. Therefore, for
purposes of this appeal, we limit our discussion to these claims consistent with
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007