Appeal 2006-2838
Application 10/257,576
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson and Walton, and erred in rejecting
claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson, McCoy,
and Walton. We further conclude that the Appellant has shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 75-79 and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Durbin. We also conclude that the Appellant failed to show that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 63 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thompson and Junkers.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject:
- claims 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51-53, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69, 75-79, and 82
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Thompson;
- claims 41-44, 46, 48, 50, 60, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 74, and 80 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson and McCoy;
and
- claims 54 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Thompson and Walton; and
- claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Thompson, McCoy, and Walton; and
- claims 75-79 and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Durbin
is not sustained.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013