Appeal No. 2006-1690
Application No. 10/154,185
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12, 14, 18-23, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Park.
2. Claims 4-7, 13, 15, 16, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Park in view of El Malki.
3. Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Park in view of Sankaran.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the 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 anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, appellants'
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of
the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Park fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14,
18, 19, 21, 23, and 27. We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect
to claims 2, 20, and 22. Finally, it is our view that the evidence relied upon and
the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007