Appeal No. 2006-3105
Application No. 09/397,494
LAYNE et al. 5,968,731 Oct. 19, 1999
(LAYNE) (filed Dec. 10, 1996)
LAUGHON et al. 6,046,165 Apr. 04, 2000
(LAUGHON) (filed Jun. 23, 1997)
McCASKY FEAZEL et al. 6,100,030 Aug. 08, 2000
(McCASKY FEAZEL) (effective date Jan. 10, 1997)
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (mailed Mar. 22, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
Appellants’ brief (filed Jan. 17, 2006) and reply brief (filed May 24, 2006) for the
arguments thereagainst.
Claims 26, 31, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Layne in view Dehlinger. Claims 26-31, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42, 51, 52, 57, and 58 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of
Layne. Claims 32, 43, 44, 49, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McCasky Feazel in view of Layne and further in view of Wong.
Claims 37, 38, 53, and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over McCasky Feazel in view of Layne and further in view of Laughon. Claims 39, 40,
55, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCasky
Feazel in view of Layne and further in view of Lipshutz. Claims 39, 40, 55, and 56 stand
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007