Appeal No. 2006-1746
Application No. 10/375,679
The examiner (final rejection, pages 2-11) rejected the claims as follows:
Claims 36-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (first paragraph) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 15-18, 20, 21, 23-25, 28-31, and 33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chester.
Claims 36, 40, 41, and 47-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lee.
Claims 20 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cory in view of Chester.
Claims 9 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chester.
Claims 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chester in view of Griffith.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chester in view of Gleason.
Claims 36, 38, 40, 41, and 45-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chester in view of Raymond.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chester in view of Raymond.
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lee in view of Griffith.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013