Appeal 2007-0285
Application 10/064,808
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1-4, 9, 12, 13, 21-23, 25, 40, and 41 over JP ‘827 in view of
Spaeh;
(b) claims 5 and 6 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh and JP ‘419;
(c) claims 7 and 8 over JP ’827 in view of Spaeh, JP ’419, and the
admitted prior art;
(d) claims 14 and 15 over JP ’827 in view of Spaeh and EP ‘368;
(e) claim 16 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh and Scheffler;
(f) claims 17, 19, and 20 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh and the
admitted prior art;
(g) claim 18 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh, the admitted prior art, and
EP ‘368;
(h) claims 26, 27, 30, and 31 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh, the
admitted prior art, and EP ‘368;
(i) claims 28 and 29 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh, the admitted prior
art, EP ‘368, and JP ‘512; and
(j) claims 10, 11, and 24 over JP ‘827 in view of Spaeh and Gillett.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant. Accordingly, we
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007