Appeal No. 2006-1729
Application No. 10/107,628
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration Appellants’ arguments set
forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answer.
After full consideration of the record before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 6, 11, 15, 22 and 26 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Ivanov. We also agree with the Examiner that claims 22, 24
through 26 and 28 through 34 are properly rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Rajski. However, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 21 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Rajski and Hong. Accordingly, we affirm in part
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 22, 24 through 26
and 28 through 34 for the reasons set forth infra.
Brief has been entered and considered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007