Appeal 2006-2365
Application 10/209,736
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa and further
in view of Batchelor.
2. Claims 3, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa and further
in view of Batchelor and Wiley.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Croley in view of Cummings or Questar.
4. Claims 3, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Croley in view of Cummings or Questar and further in
view of Wiley.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed October 19, 2005) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (filed March 3,
2004) for the appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013