Appeal 2007-0838
Application 09/851,242
subjected to any of Rejections J through O. Rather, Appellants' arguments
are principally based on the asserted shortcomings of Mancusi with regard to
teaching or suggesting two potting steps as further buttressed by Appellants’
reliance on the Runkle Declaration.
These arguments and their asserted evidentiary support are
unpersuasive for the reasons stated above in our discussion of Rejection H.
Hence, we shall also affirm: (1) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mancusi in view of JP 11-169, 676 and
Bikson (Rejection J); (2) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mancusi in view of Bikson and Caskey (Rejection
K); the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mancusi in view of JP 11-169, 676 and Caskey (Rejection L); the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mancusi in view of JP 11-169, 676 and Applicants’ admitted prior art
(Rejection M); the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Mancusi in view of JP 11-169, 676, Applicants’ admitted prior
art, and Bikson (Rejection N); and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mancusi in view of JP 11-169, 676,
Applicants’ admitted prior art, and Caskey.
Concerning rejection P: that is, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 5, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Huang in view of Mancusi and Bikson, Appellants argue the rejected claims
as a group. Thus, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we
decide this appeal as to this ground of rejection.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013