Appeal No. 2002-1590 Page 3
Application No. 09/511,516
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Okuhara
(Figures 4A, 4B).
Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hjerpe in view of Cannon.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hjerpe in view of Laue.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Okuhara in view of Laue.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
concerning each of the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 11, mailed October 30, 2001) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief
(Paper No. 10, filed October 1, 2001) and reply brief (Paper No.
12, filed January 25, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007