Appeal Number: 2006-1574
Application Number: 09/903,177
Claims 24-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Walkey in view of Pollock.
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 24-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Walkey in view of Pollock.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Walkey.
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 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Walkey.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Walkey and
further in view of Pollock.
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 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota in view of Walkey and
further in view of Pollock.
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1, 22 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Minnesota is sustained.
• The rejection of claims 22 and 28 through 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Walkey is sustained.
• The rejection of claims 22 and 33 through 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Marion is sustained.
• The rejection of claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Minnesota is
sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007