Appeal 2006-2686
Application 09/994,495
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Sheer US 5,124,041 Jun. 23, 1992
McGraw US 5,368,823 Nov. 29, 1994
Franciskovich US 5,603,899 Feb. 18, 1997
Sanadi US 5,741,463 Apr. 21, 1998
Bankier US 5,846,493 Dec. 08, 1998
Leying US 5,955,271 Sep. 21, 1999
The following rejections are on review in this appeal:
(1) claims 1-5, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Franciskovich (Answer 3);
(2) claims 1-9 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Franciskovich in view of Sanadi (Answer 4);
(3) claims 10, 11, and 13-15 stand rejected under § 103(a) over
Franciskovich in view of Bankier (Answer 6);
(4) claim 12 stands rejected under § 103(a) over Franciskovich in
view of Bankier, Leying, and Sheer (Answer 7); and
(5) claims 48 and 49 stand rejected under § 103(a) over McGraw in
view of Sanadi (Answer 8).2
Based on the totality of the record, we AFFIRM all rejections on
appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection based on § 102(b)
Claims 1-5, 16, and 19 have been rejected by the Examiner as
anticipated under § 102(b) by Franciskovich (Answer 3). Appellants only
present arguments with respect to claim 1 on appeal (Br. 10-15).
Accordingly, we limit our consideration to claim 1 on appeal. See 37 C.F.R.
2 The rejection of claims 48 and 49 under § 103(a) over Fernwood (US
5,141,719) in view of Sanadi has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer
3 and 8).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013