Appeal No. 2006-2723
Application No. 09/891,264
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the appealed claims are
Yates et al. (Yates) 6,330,586 Dec. 11, 2001
Beck et al. (Beck) 6,604,140 Aug. 5, 2003
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yates and Beck.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
answer (mailed March 8, 2006) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (filed December 14, 2005) and reply brief (filed
May 8, 2006) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make
in the briefs have not been considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007