Appeal 2007-0337
Application 09/996,200
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 10, 11, 13-18, 25, 26, 28-32, 34, 35, and 37-39 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Thomas.
2. Claims 4, 19, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin.
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Thomas in view of Foley.
4. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Reyzin and further in view of
Foley.
5. Claims 12, 27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Thomas in view of Choi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Thomas fully meets the invention set forth in claims 1-3, 10,
11, 13, 16-18, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 37. We reach the opposite
conclusion, however, with respect to claims 14, 15, 29, 30, 38, and 39. We
also conclude that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013