Appeal No. 2006-2754
Application No. 10/108,109
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 anticipation and 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 do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 8 and 11 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Ramanathan. We also do not agree with the Examiner that claims 1
through 7, 9, 10, 12 through 15 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of
Ramanathan, Bak and Passman. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 15 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