Appeal No. 2006-2376
Application No. 09/877,612
THE REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11 through 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over King in view of Jebens. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on
pages 7 through 10 of the final Office action dated December 14, 2004 (hereinafter final
action). Claims 5, 10, 17 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over King in view of Jebens and Waldin. The examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 10 through 11 of the final action. Claims 14, 16, 19 and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Jebens and official
notice. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 11 through 13 of the final action.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over King in view
of Jebens and official notice, and Pachauri. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on
pages 13 and 14 of the final office action. Throughout the opinion we make reference to
the briefs 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, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the reasons
stated infra we will not sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4 through 6, 9
through 19, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007