Appeal 2006-2295
Application 10/215,274
view of Lambropoulos with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 10-14, 16, and 18-20,
adds Sydor to the basic combination with respect to claims 3, 4, and 15, and
adds Honda to the basic combination with respect to claims 6-9 and 17.
With respect to claims 21 and 22, the Examiner applies the combination of
Talty and Seubert.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1, 2, 5,
10-14, 16, and 18-20, would one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention have found it obvious to combine Talty with
Lambropoulos to render the claimed invention unpatentable?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 3, 4, 6-
9, 15, and 17, would the ordinarily skilled artisan have found it
obvious to modify the combination of Talty and Lambropoulos by
separately adding the Sydor and Honda references to render the
claimed invention unpatentable?
(3) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 21 and
22, would the one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013