Appeal 2007-2677
Application 10/622,229
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 10, and 13-21 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Darsillo. Final Office Action
mailed November 7, 2005 at 2.
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 10, 13-21, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Darsillo,
Bi, and Alexander. Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2005 at 2.
The following prior art was relied on by the Examiner:
Alexander 3,007,878 Nov. 7, 1961
Darsillo 6,365,264 Apr. 2, 2002
Bi 2004/0197498 Oct. 7, 2004
Darsillo and Alexander are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Bi is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
In this appeal, the Appellants have not attempted to antedate Bi.
Therefore, for the purpose of this appeal, Bi is prior art.
B. ISSUES
Whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 10, and 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Darsillo.
Whether the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 10, 13-21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Darsillo, Bi, and Alexander.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are believed to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. Additional findings of fact as necessary
appear in the Analysis portion of the opinion.
1. Background of the invention
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013