Appeal No. 2006-1797
Application No. 09/866,319
We have already addressed this argument in the discussion of
claim 45 above, and we do not agree with Appellants. Further,
Appellants argue that none of the cited references cures the
deficiencies of Marty. We find no such deficiencies for any of
the references to cure. It is therefore our view, after
consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan the invention as set
forth in claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38,
42 and 44. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38, 42 and
44.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19,
23-25, 28, 30, 32, 34-36, 39-41, 43 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We have also sustained the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims
5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 31, 37, 38, 42 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, we have sustained the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 14, 22, 26, 27 and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Therefore, we affirm.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007