Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
7. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view of the
admitted prior art and Davidson and further in view of Okisu.
8. Claims 18, 19 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view
of the admitted prior art and Davidson and further in view of
Wolff.
9. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view of the
admitted prior art and further in view of Matsuda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007