Appeal 2007-0098
Application 10/169,909
II. PRIOR ART
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Suskind US 4,808,467 Feb. 28, 1989
Radwanski US 4,931,355 Jun. 5, 1990
Haid US 5,240,764 Aug. 31, 1993
Roussin-Moynier US 5,375,306 Dec. 27, 1994
Quantrille US 5,393,599 Feb. 28, 1995
Schilkowski WO 97/30223 Aug. 21, 1997
Hamajima US 5,720,737 Feb. 24, 1998
III. REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 2 through 7 and 14 through 19, and 21under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Schikowski,
Quantrille, Radwanski, Haid, Roussin-Moynier, and optionally Suskind; and
2) Claims 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
the combined disclosures of Schikowski, Quantrille, Radwanski, Haid,
Roussin-Moynier, Hamajima, and optionally Suskind.
IV. FACTUAL FINDINGS, ANALYSES, AND CONCULSIONS
Having carefully evaluated the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by the Appellant and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections set forth in the Answer1are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on
appeal for the factual findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. We
add the following primarily for emphasis and completeness.
1 We refer to the Answer mailed on June 14, 2006 as “the Answer” in this decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013