Appeal No. 2001-1912
Application No. 08/803,392
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Okanobu.1
Claims 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Okanobu and Saito.2
Claims 7-10, 13, 24, 28, and 29 have been objected to as dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but deemed drawn to allowable subject matter.
Claims 14-22 have been canceled.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 19) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No.
18) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 20) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
In the rejection of claims 1-6, 11, 12, and 25-27 over Okanobu, the examiner
finds that the reference does not show all the relevant elements on a single IC chip.
“Okanobu does disclose all but the filter being on the same IC.” (Answer at 5.)
1 Although the examiner’s rejection includes claim 29 in the listing of claims, the Answer does not
address the claim limitations. Moreover, the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 28, from which
claim 29 depends. We thus conclude that claim 29 is not now rejected.
2 The Answer lists claims 20-23 as standing rejected. However, claims 20-22 have been
canceled.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007