Appeal 2007-1089
Application 10/348,277
E. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of
Lehmann and Morioka.
F. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder, and further in
view of Singer.
G. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of
Perks.
H. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder, and further in
view of Kesselman.
I. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yao in view of Fielder, and further in view of
Abe.
J. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Fielder.
K. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Fielder, and further in
view of McGrath.
ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-40 based on obviousness.
More particularly, we decide the following issues we have determined are
dispositive in deciding this appeal:
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013