Appeal No. 2001-0140
Application No. 09/356,916
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Braverman 3,780,856 Dec. 25, 1973
Peery et al. (Peery) 4,522,622 Jun. 11, 1985
Kim 5,445,195 Aug. 29, 1995
Hanson 5,529,179 Jun. 25, 1996
Sandow 5,909,220 Jun. 1, 1999
The rejections
Claims 1 through 3, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Braverman in view of Peery.
Claims 4, 5, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hanson and further in view of
Braverman and Peery as combined regarding claim 1.
Claims 6 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kim in view of Braverman and Peery.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kim, Braverman, and Peery and further in view
of Sandow.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 14) for
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007