Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
C. Claims 11, 22, 37, 39, 41, 42, 55, 57, 59 and 60 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Britton and Swift.
D. Claims 12, 23, 43 and 61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Britton and
Morcos.
E. Claims 36 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Britton and Hitz.
F. Claims 38 and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Britton and Huang.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, the opinion refers to respective details in the Briefs1
and the Examiner’s Answer.2 Only those arguments actually made
by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
that 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
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on Feb. 7, 2006. Appellant filed a Reply
Brief on June 12, 2006.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on Apr. 12, 2006. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on July 18, 2006 stating that the Reply Brief
has been entered and considered.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007