Appeal No. 2006-1095 Page 4
Application No. 10/280,188
3. Claims 2, 3 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski [answer, pages
7-9].
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski [answer, page 10].
5. Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Boiarski and Dietz, and further
in view of Izumi [answer, pages 10 and 11].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we
make reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007