Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
claims 1, 2, 4 through 7, and 9 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee
(Office Action 23);
claims 11, 12, 21, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee
and Ito (id. 5);
claims 3, 10, and 20 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee and Shi
(id. 8);
claim 8 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee and Suzuki (id. 9);
claims 17 and 18 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee, Shi, and Ito
(id.);
claim 19 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee, Shi, and Suzuki (id.
10); and
claim 22 as unpatentable over Anderson in view of Lee, Ito, and Shi (id.).
Appellants argue the claims in the first, second, and fourth grounds of
rejection as a group; claims 10 and 20 as a group; and the remainder
separately. Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 17,
18, 19, and 22. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
2 We refer to the Amended Brief filed December 2, 2005, pursuant to the
Board Order entered October 27, 2005. We refer to the first Reply Brief
filed March 7, 2005, which was appropriately noted by the Examiner in the
communication mailed March 17, 2005. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.41(a)(1) and
41.43(a)(1) (September 2004). We observe the second Reply Brief filed
July 25, 2005, duplicates the first Reply Brief. The second Reply Brief was
noted by the Examiner with respect to the filing date of the first Reply Brief
in the communication mailed October 17, 2006.
3 The Examiner states that the grounds of rejection are set forth in the Office
Action. Answer 3-4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013