Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
3. Claims 10, 23, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Lee,
Kuchta, and further in view of Higgins.
4. Claims 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Kagle.
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
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the 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 evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007