Appeal No. 2006-2187
Application No. 10/642,413
Riggs et al. (Riggs) 4,275,768 Jun. 30, 1981
Owens et al. (Owens) 4,704,091 Nov. 3, 1987
Beinhaur et al. (Beinhaur) 4,960,391 Oct. 2, 1990
Tan 5,735,699 Apr. 7, 1998
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner’s answer (mailed Feb. 28, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s brief (filed Dec. 14, 2005) and
reply brief (filed Apr. 28, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Tan. Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Owens. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owens in view of Williams.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Owens and Williams, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of
Biche. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Owens and Williams, as applied to claim 3 above, and
further in view of Riggs. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Owens and Williams, as applied to claim 3
above, and further in view of Beinhaur. Claims 7, 8 and 15 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Owens in view of
Biche. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013