Appeal No. 2006-1456
Application No. 09/896,802
Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Cheng, Armstrong, and Smailagic.
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Cheng, Armstrong, and Barros.
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Cheng, Armstrong, and Bates.
Throughout our opinion, we make references to the Appellants’ briefs, and
to the Examiner’s Answer for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, for
the reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 14, 27,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102; and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
2-13, 15-26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants have argued the claims in eight groupings as follows:
Claims 1, 14, and 27 as Group I;
Claim 29, as Group II;
Claims 2 and 15 as Group III;
Claims 3-4, 9, 12-13, 16-17, 22, 25-26, and 28 as Group IV;
Claims 8, 10-11, 21, and 23-24 as Group V;
1 Appellants filed an appeal brief on Aug. 4, 2005. Appellants filed a reply brief
on Jan. 30, 2006. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on Nov. 30,
2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007