Appeal No. 2005-0783
Application No. 10/039,094
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Prast et al. (Prast) 5,176,731 Jan. 5, 1993
Nakai et al. (Nakai) 5,996,375 Dec. 7, 1999
Byron 5,694,502 Dec. 2, 1997
Kim et al. (Kim ‘342) 6,430,342 Aug. 6, 2002
Bernstein et al. (Bernstein) 6,509,547 Jan. 21, 2003
Kim (Kim ‘881) 6,501,881 Dec. 31, 2002
The following seven rejections are before us for review:
1. Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for indefiniteness.
2. Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Byron.
3. Claims 1, 3, 5 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Byron.
4. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness in view of Byron taken in combination with Bernstein.
5. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness in view of Kim ‘881.
6. Claims 1-2 and 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Prast and Nakai.
7. Claims 1, 4 and 24-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness in view of Kim ‘342.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007