Appeal 2007-0724
Reexamination Control 90/006,775
Patent 6,428,526
1 Nestegard US 4,894,060 Jan. 16, 1990
2 Roessler US 5,176,670 Jan. 05, 1993
3 Buell US 5,221,274 Jun. 22, 1993
4 Dragoo US 5,460,622 Oct. 24, 1995
5 Caldwell US 5,462,540 Oct. 31, 1995
6
7 Board decision in Application 08/834,777 dated September 18, 2001
8 (hereinafter “the ‘777 Board decision”)
9
10 The following rejections are at issue in this appeal:
11 1. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
12 anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
13 unpatentable over Dragoo, and by incorporation, Buell and Nestegard.
14 2. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
15 unpatentable over the combination of Buell, Nestegard, and the ‘777 Board
16 decision.
17 3. Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
18 unpatentable over the combination of Roessler and Caldwell.
19 The appellants contend that the examiner incorrectly interpreted claim
20 1. As for the prior art rejections, the appellants contend that the examiner
21 failed to establish that Dragoo, and by incorporation, Buell and Nestegard
22 disclose every limitation of claim 1. The appellants also contend that the
23 examiner failed to establish that Dragoo, and by incorporation, Buell and
24 Nestegard as well as the combined teachings of Buell, Nestegard, and the
25 ‘777 Board decision teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1. Finally,
26 the appellants contend that there is no motivation to combine the teachings
27 of Roessler and Caldwell.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013