Appeal No. 2001-1094
Application 09/237,578
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Flechsig in view of Horikawa.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Flechsig and Horikawa as applied to the claims
above, and further in view of Zak.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Brief1 and the Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant
and Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellant points out that the Examiner maintains that
Flechsig shows every limitation of claims 1, 9 and 11, with the
exception of locating the piezoelectric element on the side face
1 The Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on October 23, 2000,
Paper No. 16. In response, the Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 17,
was mailed on November 13, 2000.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007