Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 20
Application No. 10/458,112
Claim 24 (Sun)
V. We consider next the examiner’s rejection of claim 24 as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Sun. We note that claim 24 depends
upon independent claim 22. Because we have reversed the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 22 as being anticipated by Sun, we will also
reverse the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 24 as being obvious
over Sun.
Claims 27 and 28 (Sun in view of Rizzo)
VI. Lastly, we consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Sun in view of Rizzo. We note that
claims 27 and 28 each depend upon independent claim 25. Because we
have reversed the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 25 as being
anticipated by Sun, we will also reverse the examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 27 and 28 as being obvious over Sun in view of Rizzo.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejections of claims
18-20, 29 and 30 in view of the prior art of record, but we have not
sustained the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-17, 22-28 and 38.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-6, 8-20, 22-30
and 38 is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007