Appeal 2007-1877
Application 09/887,306
Suzuki US 6,477,589 B1 Nov. 5, 2002
(filed Mar. 15, 1999)
Keeney US 2004/0148335 A1 Jul. 29, 2004
(eff. filed Oct. 16, 2000)
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Van Der Linden alone. Claims 19-24, 26-29, 31,
34-37, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Suzuki in view of Keeney.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
[see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
ISSUES
(1) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 1-5, 7-9,
and 11-18, has the Examiner established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on Van Der Linden alone?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), with respect to appealed claims 19-24,
26-29, 31, 34-37, and 39, would one of ordinary skill in the art
have found it obvious to combine Suzuki and Keeney to render the
claimed invention unpatentable?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013