Appeal No. 2006-2936
Application No. 10/013,714
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 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 agree
with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 13
through 16, 18 through 21, 24 through 30, 32 through 35, 40, 44
through 48, 50 through 53, 58, 62 and 63 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Britton. We also
agree with the Examiner that claims 5, 11, 12, 17, 22, 23, 31, 36
through 39, 41 through 43, 49, 54 through 57, and 59 through 61
are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over combinations of Britton, Dan, Swift, Morcos, Hitz, and
Huang. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1 through 63 for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’ Answer,
as further expanded upon here, and 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