Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
Claims 4 through 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Task
Force.
The appellant has stated that the claims in this rejection stand or fall with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 4 through 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Task
Force.
Claims 8 through 10 and 19 through 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Minnesota.
The appellant has stated that the claims in this rejection stand or fall with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 8 through 10 and 19 through 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Minnesota.
Claims 11, 12, 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Marion.
The appellant has stated that the claims in this rejection stand or fall with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 11, 12, 14 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of
Marion.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Plotkin.
The appellant has stated that the claim in this rejection stands or falls with the independent
claims rejected under novelty above, and accordingly we sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Plotkin.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007