Appeal No. 2005-2239
Application No. 10/448,905
The Examiner relies on the following references in
rejecting the appealed claims:
Blalock et al. (Blalock) 5,286,344 Feb. 15, 1994
Halman et al. (Halman) 5,658,425 Aug. 19, 1997
Tsai et al. (Tsai) 5,880,005 Mar. 9, 1999
(Filed Oct. 23, 1997)
Hung et al. (Hung) 5,965,035 Oct. 12, 1999
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
(I) Claims 1 to 17 and 21 to 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as lacking an adequate enablement
for the claimed invention.
(II) Claims 1 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Hung.
(III) Claims 1, 13, 14, 21, 33, 37 and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Tsai.
(IV) Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 35, 37,
and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious Halman
in view Blalock. (Answer, pp. 3-8).3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the Examiner and Appellants regarding the above noted
rejections, we make reference to the Answer for the Examiner’s
3 The subject matter of claims 3 to 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23
to 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36 have not been included in the prior art
rejections under §§ 102 and 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007