Appeal 2007-0559
Application 10/037,659
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6-9,
32-35, and 59-63 over Drexler and Demers
Claims 6-9, 32-35, and 59-63 are each dependent claims. As applied by the
Examiner, Demers has been relied upon to account for the additional limitations
appearing in the dependent claims and does not make up for the above-noted
deficiencies of Drexler with regard to independent claims 1, 27, and 53.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that claims 6-9, 32-35, and 59-63 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of Drexler and
Demers.
The Obviousness Rejection of
Claims 13 and 39 over Drexler and Huth
Claim 13 depends indirectly from independent claim 1. Claim 39 depends
indirectly from independent claim 27. As applied by the Examiner, Huth has been
relied upon to account for the additional limitations appearing in dependent claims
13 and 39 and does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Drexler with
regard to independent claims 1 and 27. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown
that claims 13 and 39 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined
teachings of Drexler and Huth.
The Obviousness of Claims 18-21, 25,
44-47, 51, and 66 over Drexler and Poskanzer
Claims 18-21, 25, 44-47, 51 and 66 are dependent claims. As applied by the
Examiner, Poskanzer has been relied upon to account for the additional limitations
appearing in the dependent claims and does not make up for the above-noted
deficiencies of Drexler with regard to independent claims 1, 27, and 53.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that claims 18-21, 25, 44-47, 51 and 66
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013