Appeal 2007-1280
Application 10/894,950
Claims 1 through 3, 9 through 17, and 19 through 22, all claims on
appeal, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In a first stated rejection as to
claims 1 and 19, the Examiner relies upon Lenormand in view of Harres. In
a second stated rejection, the Examiner adds Wiedeman and Grybos as to
claim 2. Turning to claim 3, in a third stated rejection, the Examiner relies
upon Lenormand in view of Harres, Wiedeman and Grybos, further in view
of Bloom. Next, in a fourth stated rejection, of claims 9 through 14, 17, and
20, the Examiner relies upon Lenormand in view of Harres. Additionally,
claims 9, and 15 through 17 stand rejected in a fifth stated rejection over
Lenormand in view of Wedding. Lastly, in a sixth stated rejection, the
Examiner relies upon Lenormand in view of Harres as to claims 21 and 22.
Rather than repeat the positions of the Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for Appellants’ positions, and
to the Answer for the Examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, as
augmented here, we sustain each of the earlier-noted stated rejections of the
claims on appeal except for the rejection of claim 11. Therefore, we affirm-
in-part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013