Appeal No. 2006-1831
Application No. 09/755,383
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants could have made but choose 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 obviousness relied upon by the 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 47-50, 52, 54, 56-60, 71-73, 75, and
77-80 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hannaford and Noll. We also
agree with the Examiner that claims 51, 53, 55, 61-68, 74 and 76
are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Hannaford, Noll and Zilles. Accordingly,
we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 47 through 68 and
71 through 80 for the reasons set forth infra.
I. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 47-
50, 52, 54, 56-60, 71-73, 75, 77-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007