Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (mailed
December 20, 2005) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed
July 21, 2005) and reply brief (filed February 21, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
The examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. [See Answer at p. 5]
Claims 1, 22 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Minnesota.
Claims 22 and 28 through 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Walkey.
Claims 22 and 33 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Marion.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota.4
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Transportation Issues. [See footnote 4 below]
Claims 4 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view
of Task Force. [See footnote 4 below]
Claims 8 through 10 and 19 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Minnesota. [See footnote 4 below]
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in
view of Marion. [See footnote 4 below]
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Plotkin. [See footnote 4 below]
4 This rejection is made in the Final Rejection mailed January 13, 2005. This rejection is not presented in any of the
appeal brief, examiner answer, or reply brief. The examiner characterizes this omission as evidence that the
rejection was not appealed. A more correct characterization is that this rejection stands or falls with the above
rejection over novelty with respect to the independent claim(s). [See Brief at p. 3].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007