Appeal 2007-0954
Application 09/999,074
Alcorn US 2004/0153509 A1 Aug. 5, 2004
(filed Aug. 19. 2003)4
Ahluwalia US 6,728,685 B1 Apr. 27, 2004
(filed Apr. 5, 2000)
The Examiner’s rejections are as follows:
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-15, 17-20, 24, 26-28, 38, 39, 41, 43-46, 48, 49, 53,
54, and 58-605 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Berg in view of Guheen.
2. Claims 4, 21, 22, 40, 47, 52, 55, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berg in view of Guheen and further in
view of Flores.
3. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Berg in view of Guheen, Flores, and further in view of Diener.
4. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Berg in view of Guheen and further in view of Alcorn.
5. Claims 6, 16, 25, 30-32, 34, 36, 37, 42, 50, 51, 61, and 62 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berg in view of
Guheen and further in view of Hsu.
4 This published application is a continuation-in-part of Application No.
09/608,208 filed Jun. 30, 2000.
5 Although the Examiner omitted claim 59 in the statement of the rejection
on Page 3 of the Answer, claim 59 was nevertheless included in the
discussion of the rejection. See Answer 6; see also Br. 2 (indicating that
claims 1-63 stand rejected). We therefore presume that the Examiner’s
omission of claim 59 in the grouping on Page 3 of the Answer was an
inadvertent typographical error and the Examiner intended to include claim
59 in this rejection statement.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013