Appeal 2007-0559
Application 10/037,659
REFERENCE RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
Demers US 5,870,761 Feb. 9, 1999
Drexler US Pub. App. 2002/0046248 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
Poskanzer US 6,658,426 B1 Dec. 2, 2003
Huth US 6,704,742 B1 Mar. 9, 2004
THE REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 10-12, 14-17, 22-24, 26-31, 36-38, 40-43,
48-50, 52-58, 64-65, and 67-90 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Drexler.
The Examiner rejected claims 6-9, 32-35, and 59-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Drexler and Demers.
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Drexler and Huth.
The Examiner rejected claims 18-21, 25, 44-47, 51, and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Drexler and Poskanzer.
B. Issues
Has the applicant shown error in the anticipation rejection of claims 1-5, 10-
12, 14-17, 22-24, 26-31, 36-38, 40-43, 48-50, 52-58, 64-65, and 67-90 under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Drexler?
Has the applicant shown error in the obviousness rejection of claims 6-9, 32-
35, and 59-63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings
of Drexler and Demers?
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013