Appeal 2006-2254
Application 10/182,369
Frantz US 5,658,408 Aug. 19, 1997
Parellada US 5,981,027 Nov. 9, 1999
Miller US 6,054,091 Apr. 25, 2000
Noda US 6,174,990 B1 Jan. 16, 2001
Tuma US 6,627,133 B1 Sep. 30, 2003
The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
a) claims 11 and 21 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Parellada;
b) claims 12-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Obeda;
c) claims 18-19 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Obeda and Frantz;
d) claim 20 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parellada
in view of Obeda and MacLaughlin;
e) claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parellada
in view of Miller and Noda; and
f) claims 23-25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Parellada in view of Tuma.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior
art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and
Appellant in support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the Examiner's rejections under § 102 and § 103 are well
founded. Our reasons follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007