Appeal No. 2006-1145 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/143,977
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Hughes 4,229,919 Oct. 28, 1980
McClure 5,253,839 Oct. 19, 1993
Moses 5,314,156 May 24, 1994
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 16, 17, 21 and 22 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Moses.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moses in view of Hughes.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moses in view of McClure.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (supplemental answer
mailed November 23, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed March 10,
2005) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007