Appeal No. 2001-0017
Application No. 09/040,479
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Andrews (Andrews ‘340) 5,620,340 Apr. 15, 1997
Shimizu et al. (Shimizu) 5,645,436 Jul. 08, 1997
Andrews (Andrews ‘887) 5,842,887 Dec. 01. 1998
(filed Dec. 26, 1996)
Thenaisie et al. (Thenaisie) 5,851,121 Dec. 22, 1998
(filed Mar. 31, 1997)
Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).1 As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers
Shimizu in view of Andrews ‘340 with respect to claims 1-6, 8,
10, 11, and 14-24. To this initial combination of references,
the Examiner has separately added Andrews ‘887 as to claims 7 and
12, and Thenaisie as to claim 25.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 16) and
Answer (Paper No. 17) for the respective details.
1 The statement of the grounds of rejection of appealed claims 1-8, 10-
12 and 14-25 at page 3 of the Answer makes reference to the final Office
action mailed December 13, 1999 (Paper No. 12). This referenced Office action
did not include claims 15-21 in the statement of the grounds of rejection at
page 4. We assume, along with Appellants (Brief, page 4), that this was an
inadvertent error of omission and the Examiner intended to include claims 15-
21 in the group of claims rejected based on the combination of Shimizu and
Andrews ‘340 as indicated in the earlier Office action mailed July 30, 1999
(Paper No. 10).
Further, although the Examiner, in the final Office action, had made a
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 25, no mention of this
rejection is made in the Examiner’s Answer. We conclude, therefore, that this
rejection has been withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007