Appeal No. 2006-1729
Application No. 10/107,628
B. Claims 22, 24 through 26 and 28 through 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Rajski.
C. Claims 1 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Rajski and Hong.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs2
and the Examiner’s Answer3. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments
that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been taken into consideration. See 37 CFR
41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the Examiner’s
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on May 20, 2005. Appellants filed a Reply
Brief on October 06, 2005.
3 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on August 11, 2005. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on December 20, 2005, stating that the Reply
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007