Appeal No. 2006-2374 Page 3
Application No. 10/164,670
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 14, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noguchi in view of McClintock.
2. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Noguchi in view of McClintock and further in view of
Stolmeier.
3. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Noguchi in view of McClintock and further in view of Dickson.
4. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Noguchi in view of McClintock and further in view of Furukawa.
Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and the appellants regarding this appeal, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed February 16, 2006) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief (filed December
27, 2005) and reply brief (filed April 11, 2006) for the appellants’ arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
We begin with the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of McClintock. We note at
the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007