Appeal No. 2006-2280 Page 24
Application No. 10/244,011
4. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, 14-16, 19-21 and
23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Carpenter is
sustained.
5. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Carpenter is not sustained.
6. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 23 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Crusor is sustained.
7. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Crusor is not sustained.
8. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 8, 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Finegan in view of Shrader is not
sustained.
9. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-7, 10-12 and 14-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Finegan is
not sustained.
10. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 8, 9, 13 and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carpenter in view of Finegan
and Shrader is not sustained.
11. We enter a new ground of rejection, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), of
claims 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Carpenter and Hunn.
12. We enter a new ground of rejection, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), of
claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Frazier and Carpenter.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007