Appeal No. 2006-2626
Application No. 10/315,175
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting
the appealed claims are:
Blowers 3,529,878 Sep. 22, 1970
Roderick 3,999,475 Dec. 28, 1976
Keffer 5,551,772 Sep. 3, 1996
Dunn 5,800,027 Sep. 1, 1998
Ovadia 5,826,711 Oct. 27, 1998
Lin et al. (Lin) 6,348,864 Feb. 19, 2002
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 15, 16 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Keffer in view of Blowers.
Claims 4, 5, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keffer in view of Blowers and Roderick.
Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keffer in view of Blowers and Lin.
Claims11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keffer in view of Blowers and Ovadia.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Keffer in view of Blowers and Dunn1.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner
and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
answer (mailed March 17, 2006 for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
1 The rejection of claims 1-12, 14-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has been
withdrawn by the examiner (answer, page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007