Appeal 2006-2179
Application 10/735,369
II. PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies upon the following references:
Taylor US 5,520,516 May 28, 1996
Ackerman ‘633 US 2003/0059633 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Subramanian US 6,677,064 B1 Jan. 13, 2004
Ackerman ‘588 US 6,887,588 B2 May 3, 2005
III. REJECTION
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Ackerman ‘633;
2) Claims 1 through 12 and 14 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the disclosure of Subramanian;
3) Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Subramanian and Taylor; and
4) Claims 1, 2, 5 through 12, and 15 through 20 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over
the claims of Ackerman ‘588.
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We have carefully considered the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by both the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejections and obviousness-type double
patenting rejection are well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections for the factual findings and conclusion set forth in the
Answer. We add following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013