Appeal No. 2005-1331 3
Application No. 10/215,414
Claims 3 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yoshio in view of Balboni as applied above and further in view of Krackow.1
Rather than reiterate the examiner's statement of the above-noted rejections and
the conflicting viewpoints advanced by appellants and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we refer to the examiner’s answer (mailed December 3, 2004) for the
reasoning in support of the above-noted rejections and to the brief (filed June 4, 2004)
and reply brief (filed January 27, 2005) for appellants’ arguments to the contrary.
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal has included a
careful assessment of appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art
references, and the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determination that the evidence relied
upon by the examiner is not sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to appellants’ claims 1 through 3, 6 through 12, 14, 16
through 22 and 24 on appeal. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
1A rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth on1
page 2 of the final rejection, has now been withdrawn in light of the amendment after
final filed with the brief on June 4, 2004.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007