Appeal No. 2006-0456 Page 3
Application No. 10/410,778
Young 4,632,533 Dec. 30, 1986
Baruch 5,084,731 Jan. 28, 1992
Kuo et al. 5,848,347 Dec. 8, 1998
Claims 1-13 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Young in view of Kuo and
Baruch.
Claims 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Young in view of Kuo.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed August 3,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 28, 2005) for the
appellants’ argument thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Argument which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007