Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
3) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9,
11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stobb.
4) The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stobb.
5) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stobb and Motooka.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, and 15-17 as anticipated by
Stobb is sustained, rejection of claims 4, 6, 13, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Stobb
is reversed, rejection of claims 9, 11, and 14 as unpatentable over Stobb is
sustained, rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Stobb is reversed, rejection of
claims 2 and 8 as unpatentable over Stobb and Motooka is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
hh
DAVIDSON, DAVIDSON & KAPPEL, LLC
485 SEVENTH AVENUE, 14TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10018
18
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: September 9, 2013