Ex Parte Abraham et al - Page 3





               Appeal No. 2006-2344                                                                                             
               Application No. 10/408,890                                                                                       

                                                      Rejections At Issue                                                       

               A.  Claims 1, 2, 7 through 12 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                               

               unpatentable over the combination of Admitted Prior Art (APA), Akimoto and Subramanian.                          

               B.  Claims 3 through 6 and 13 through 191 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          

               unpatentable over the combination of (APA), Akimoto, Subramanian and Pedersen.                                   

                      Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, the opinion refers to                 

               respective details in the Briefs2 and the Examiner’s Answer3.  Only those arguments actually                     

               made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.  Arguments that Appellants could                       

               have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been taken into consideration.  See 37                    

               CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).                                                                      

                                                          OPINION                                                               

                      In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the subject matter                  

               on appeal, the Examiner’s rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the evidence                

               of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections.  We have, likewise,                    

               reviewed and taken into consideration Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with                   

               the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in the rebuttal set forth in the             

               Examiner’s Answer.                                                                                               

                      After full consideration of the record before us, we agree with the Examiner that claims                  
                                                                                                                               
               1 We note that both the Examiner’s Answer and Appellants’ Brief properly included claim 20 in group A above      
               while erroneously including claim 20 in group B.  We treat claim 20 herein as being part of group A above.       
               2 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on June 16, 2005.  Appellants filed a Reply Brief on November 17, 2005.       
               3 The Examiner mailed a corrected Examiner’s Answer on April 5, 2006.  The Examiner mailed an office             
               communication on January 20, 2006, stating that the Reply Brief has been entered and considered.  References made
               herein are directed to the corrected Examiner’s Answer.  The defective Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 16,  

                                                               3                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007