Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the
examiner that the inventions of claims 1 and 13 are
unpatentable over Miyata and Kim. Because the appellant has
stated that all claims on appeal stand or fall together (Br.
at 5), we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14,
16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Miyata and Kim. With
regard to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 over Miyata,
Kim, and Shimada, the appellant does not make any argument in
addition to those made in connection with the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17 over Miyata and Kim.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 18
and 19 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Kim, and Shimada.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata and
Kim is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Kim, and Shimada is
affirmed.
Because our discussion of the references shifted somewhat
from the examiner’s rationale, we denominate the affirmance as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007