Appeal No. 2006-2063
Application No. 10/126,019
As for the examiner’s rejections of claims 4 through 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randklev in view of
Brennan, claims 8 and 13 based on Randklev, Brennan and Bullock,
claims 14 and 15 based on Randklev and Litke, claim 22 based on
Randklev and Burnell-Jones, and claim 23 based on Randklev,
Bullock and Litke, we have reviewed the additional patents used
by the examiner in making the rejections of those claims, which
claims are also dependent from independent claim 1 on appeal, and
find that the additional patents do not overcome or otherwise
cure the deficiencies in the basic patent to Randklev noted
above. Thus, the rejections of dependent claims 4 through 6, 8,
13 through 15, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will likewise
not be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejections of claims 28, 30 and 32
through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Randklev in view Sondhi, claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Randklev in view Sondhi and Brennan, and claims 37 through 39
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randklev in
view Sondhi and Kaelble, we have again reviewed the applied
patents and find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. In the first of these
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007