Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
2 on appeal:
3 Kolosov et al. (“Kolosov”) 2004/0123650 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
4 O’Rear 2003/0100453 A1 May 29, 2003
5 Gatto 2003/0171226 A1 Sept. 11, 2003
6 Perez et al. (“Perez”) US 5,236,610 Aug. 17, 1993
7 McFarland et al. (“McFarland”) US 6,541,271 Apr. 1, 2003
8 Smrcka et al. (“Smrcka”) EP 1,233,361 A1 Aug. 21, 2002
9 Garr et al. (“Garr”) US 5,993,662 Nov. 30, 1999
10
11 B. ISSUES
12 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
13 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 10, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
14 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov and O’Rear
15 or Gatto?
16 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
17 Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
18 unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov and Perez?
19 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
20 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7, 8, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
21 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, McFarland, and
22 O’Rear or Gatto?
23 Have the Appellants sustained their burden of showing that the
24 Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
25 unpatentable over the combination of Kolosov, Smrcka, and O’Rear or
26 Gatto?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013