Ex Parte 5073484 et al - Page 3

                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