Appeal 2007-2494
Application 10/161,134
Su. The Examiner does not point to any teachings in any of Kim, Ilg or
Wolf which would cure the deficiencies of Mason and Su (Answer at 8-10).
Therefore, we will reverse the rejections of (i) claims 12-14 and 58 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason and Su;
(ii) claims 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined
teachings of Mason, Su and Wolf; (iii) claims 59 and 60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason, Su and Ilg; and
(iv) claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined
teachings of Mason, Su, Wolf and Kim.
IV. Summary
In view of the record and for the reasons given, it is
ORDERED that the rejection of claims 12-14 and 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason and Su is
REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 15 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason, Su
and Wolf is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 59 and 60 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason, Su
and Ilg is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mason, Su, Wolf and
Kim is REVERSED; and,
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013