Appeal No. 2006-1460
Application No. 10/033,315
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holl, Wilding or Dubrow in view of Mastrangelo.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Holl, Wilding or Dubrow.
Finally, claims 15-19 and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilding.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a thorough
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
Some but not all of the commonly rejected claims have been
separately argued by the appellants in the manner required by
37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(September 13, 2004). We will individually
consider these separately argued claims in resolving the issues
before us on this appeal.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we will
sustain each of these rejections.
THE SECTION 102 REJECTION OVER HOLL
The appellants argue that Holl fails to anticipatorily
disclose the claim 1 feature of at least one operative component
“mounted aboard” the multi-layer laminated substrate. According
to the appellants, while Holl discloses operative components such
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007