Appeal No. 2006-1595
Application No. 09/798,484
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a
way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s),
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
3. Claims 1-6, 12-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Parson.
4. Claims 7, 9-11, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Hellestrand, Martinolle, and further in
view of Shinde.
5. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Burgoon in view of Hellestrand, Martinolle, Shinde, and further
in view of Parson.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007