Appeal 2007-0725
Reexamination Control 90/006,785
Patent 5,073,484
4) excerpts from the prosecution history of Application
06/467,229.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Weiss. (Answer at 3).
Claims 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Deutsch. (Answer at 4).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being obvious over
Deutsch in view of Tom. (Answer at 5).
We have jurisdiction under 35 USC §§ 6(b) and 306.
We affirm each rejection.
II. Issues
Whether the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 USC
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Weiss is proper?
Whether the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23, and 25 under 35
USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by Deutsch is proper?
Whether the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC § 103(a)
as being obvious over Deutsch in view of Tom is proper?
Whether there was a basis for finding that a substantial new question
of patentability exists as to the Deutsch and Tom references such that a
reexamination as to these references was proper?
III. Findings of fact
The record supports the following findings of fact by at least a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The claims on appeal are reproduced below:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013