Appeal 2007-0571
Application 10/277,004
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1, 4-7, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Bailey.
2. Claims 10-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bailey and Sumser.2
3. Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti.3
2 The Final Office Action, dated November 1, 2005, cites to German Patent
Document DE 10152803 (Sumser et al.) in the rejections of claims 10-13, 15, and
20 (Final Office Action 5). The Examiner appears to substitute the U.S.
counterpart patent in the evidence relied upon section of the Answer (Answer 3).
3 The Answer states that claims 14 and 20 are rejected based on the same grounds,
i.e., as unpatentable over Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti (Answer 2). The Answer
subsequently, however, lists the rejection of claim 20 as based on only the
combination of Bailey and Faletti (Answer 5). Since claim 20 depends from
claim 11, which was rejected based on the combination of Bailey and Sumser, we
understand the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 to be based on the combined
teachings of Bailey, Sumser, and Faletti.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013