Appeal 2007-0761
Application 09/907,610
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sameth US 5,882,202 Mar. 16, 1999
(filed Nov. 27, 1996)
Mullaney US 5,917,484 Jun. 29, 1999
(filed Feb. 24, 1997)
Kennelly US 6,559,861 B1 May 6, 2003
(filed Mar. 9, 1999)
Rejections:
I: Claims 1 to 8, 11 to 20, and 22 to 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) for being anticipated by Kennelly.
II: Claims 9 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being
obvious over Kennelly in view of Mullaney.
III: Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious
over Kennelly in view of Sameth.
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not anticipated
by Kennelly, or rendered obvious by Kennelly alone, or in combination with
Mullaney or Sameth, for reasons to be discussed more fully below. The
Examiner contends that each of the three groups of claims is properly
rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013