Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 VI. Order
2 Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it is
3 ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 15, and
4 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Frutin I “as evidenced
5 by Rudick” is AFFIRMED;
6 FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and
7 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin I and Rudick
8 as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 15, and 16 and further in view of Kohler is
9 AFFIRMED;
10 FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 14
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin I in view of
12 Kohler as applied to claims 12 and 13 and further in view of Berg is
13 AFFIRMED;
14 FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and
15 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frutin I as applied to
16 claims 1, 3, 5-8, 15, and 16 and further in view of Frutin II is AFFIRMED;
17 FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4,
18 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffman in
19 view of Denton is AFFIRMED;
20 FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffman in view of
22 Denton as applied to claims 1, 4, 9, and 10 and further in view of Bergman is
23 AFFIRMED; and
25
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013