Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the invention as set forth in claims 14 and 26.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
14 and 26.
IV. Under 35 USC 103, is the Rejection of Claims 15 and 27
as Being Unpatentable over the combination of Vetro, Ng, Bose,
Dugad and Rosman Proper?
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 27, Appellants argue
at pages 35 and 36 of the Appeal Brief that the Vetro, Ng, Bose
and Dugad combination is deficient and it does not teach the
claimed invention as recited in the independent claims from which
claims 15 and 27 indirectly depend. Appellants also argue that
Rosman5 does not cure these deficiencies. As noted in the
discussion of claim 14 and 26 above, we find that no such
deficiencies exist in the rejection, and that the Vetro, Ng, Bose
and Dugad combination teaches the limitations in question.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Vetro, Ng, Bose, Dugad and Rosman also teaches the claimed
limitation.
5 Rosman is relied upon for its teaching of using a 3D pipeline to perform
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007