Appeal No. 2006-0979
Application No. 08/818,185
The examiner relies on the following references to support the taking of
official notice:
Cheng et al. (Cheng) 5,873,092 Feb. 16, 1999
(filed Dec. 14, 1995)
Phillips et al. (Phillips) 6,151,637 Nov. 21, 2000
(filed Sep. 4, 1996)
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Kessler, and further
in view of the examiner’s taking of Official Notice, relying upon Cheng and
Phillips.
2. Claims 5, 8, 33-36 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Kessler, and further in view
of Tang.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we
make reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007