Ex Parte Sincaglia et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-0244                                                                              
                Application 09/777,500                                                                        
                                                PRIOR ART                                                     
                    The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in                         
                rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                            
                Wiser                    6,385,596 B1                   May 7, 2002                         
                 Lida                    6,209,787 B1                   Apr. 3, 2001                        
                Chen                     6,412,004 B1                   Jun. 25, 2002                       
                Jones                    6,453,355 B1                   Sep. 17, 2002                       
                Hazra                    6,510,553 B1                   Jan. 21, 2003                       

                                               REJECTIONS                                                     
                      Claims 9, 33, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being                     
                unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones.                                                      
                      Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 48, 49 and 50                    
                stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in                      
                view of Jones and further in view of Hazra                                                    
                      Claims 18, 21, 34 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as                       
                being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones and further in view Wiser.                      
                      Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being                                
                unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones and further in view of Iida.                          
                      Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                        
                Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make                      
                reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 23, 2006) for the reasoning                   
                in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Mar. 16, 2006)                  
                and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 7, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.                          


                                                      3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013