Ex Parte Powell et al - Page 3


                   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