Appeal 2006-2343
Application 10/246,620
The specific rejections are as follows:
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Keller and
claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Keller;
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Keller in view of Huss;
3. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over von Kraewel in view of Sakamoto; and
4. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over von Kraewel in view of Sakamoto and UM305.2
Based on our view of the rejections, the underlying evidence relied
upon, and the responses to the arguments presented in the Answer as well as
the arguments presented in the Brief and Reply Brief, we sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 7 over Keller and Keller in view of Huss. We,
however, do not sustain the rejections over von Kraewel in view of
Sakamoto with or without UM305. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Rejection of Claims 1 and 2 over Keller
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 1 and 2 over Keller together
and, therefore, we address them together. We select claim 1 to represent the
issues on appeal.
2 As pointed out by the Examiner in the Answer, Appellants list only claim 2
as rejected. The error is harmless in view of our disposition of the rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007