Appeal No. 2006-2975
Application No. 09/794,742
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
rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections and the
evidence of 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 Answers.
After full consideration of the record before us, we do not agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, 10, 13
through 15, 17 through 19, 22 through 24 and 26 through 31 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the combination of Roberts and Nielsen. We also do not agree
with the Examiner that claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21 and 25
are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over various combinations of Roberts, Nielsen, Kaghazian,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007