Appeal No. 2006-1279
Application No. 10/249,005
The examiner relies on the following references:
Berson 5,288,994 Feb. 22, 1994
Fink et al. (Fink) 6,750,461 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Oct. 2, 2002)1
Gilpatrick 4,813,062 Mar. 14, 1989
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berson in view of Fink.
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Berson in view of Fink and further in
view of Gilpatrick.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the prior
art rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
1 The patent claims benefit from U.S. provisional application 60/330,358,
filed Oct. 18, 2001, and U.S. provisional application 60/326,868, filed Oct.
3, 2001.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007