Appeal 2006-0959
Application 10/075,914
The Examiner rejects the claims under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Examiner relies on the following prior art
references as evidence of unpatentability:
Ragheb US 5,824,049 Oct. 20, 1998
Wolff US 5,725,567 Mar. 10, 1998
Mayer US 5,630,840 May 20, 1997
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:1
A. Claims 1-10, 13, 15, 18, 20-22, 25 and 27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Ragheb.2
B. Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
as being anticipated by Wolff.
C. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wolff and Mayer.
D. Claims 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ragheb and
Wolff.
OPINION
As no claim is argued separately from any other and because the
section 103 rejections are not separately argued, for each rejection we select
claim 1 to represent the issues on appeal. We affirm substantially for the
1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2 (Answer, p. 2).
2 The listing of “2-22” in the Answer instead of “20-22” is harmless error as
evidenced by the Final Rejection and Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007