Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 3
Application No. 10/768,827
2. Claims 1, 13, 14, 15, 24 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bodamer
[answer, page 4].
3. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by McLain [answer, page 6].
4. Claims 1-8, 11, 13, 15-19, 23, 24, 27-29, 32 and 34 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Ryzl in view of McLain [answer, page 7].
5. Claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Ryzl in view of McLain, and further in view of Flynn [answer, page
13].
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 anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007