Appeal No. 2006-1187
Application No. 10/056,832
Claims 3, 8, 11, 13, 16 through 20, 22 through 32 and 49 through 52 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Turkel. The
examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 11 through 17 of the Final Office action
mailed April 27, 2005.
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, appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellant and the examiner, and for
the reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of: a) claims 1, 3
through 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 20, 22, 24 through 32, 49 and 51 under 35
U.S.C. § 101; b) claims 1, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and c) claims 3, 8, 19,
23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32 and 51 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, we will not sustain the
examiner’s rejections of: a) claims 8, 13, 23 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; b)
claim 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 1; c) claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 33
through 39 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; nor d) claims 11, 13, 16 through
we will consider the rejection properly before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007