Appeal No. 2006-2441
Application No. 10/056,224
Appellant 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 Appellant’s 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 do not
agree with the Examiner that claim 9 is properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Bunnell and Roeber. We also do not agree with the Examiner that
claims 10 through 19 are properly rejected over the various
combinations of Bunnell and Roeber, Levine, Razban and/or
Mahalingaiah. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 9 through 19 for the reasons set forth infra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007