Appeal No. 2006-2184
Application No. 09/819,427
The following rejections are on appeal before us:1
1. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-27, 29-33, and 36-41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dedrick in view of
Sullivan.
2. Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dedrick in view of Sullivan and further in view of Moshfeghi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make
reference to the brief 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 obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants' arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is 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 one
1 Although appellants’ brief includes arguments pertaining to an additional rejection based on
U.S. Pats. 6,446,076 and 6,457,076 to Burkey et al. and Cheng et al. respectively [see brief,
pages 24-27], these arguments are not consistent with the two grounds of rejection to be
reviewed on appeal listed on page 6 of the brief and acknowledged on pages 2 and 3 of the
answer. In addition, the examiner's grounds of rejection does not rely on either the Burkey or
Cheng references [see answer, pages 3-11]. Accordingly, any rejection based on the Burkey and
Cheng references is not before us. Therefore, appellants’ arguments pertaining to such a
rejection have not been considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007