Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, and Chan.
As for claims 2 and 3, each of which depends from claim
1, the examiner additionally applied Kii and Rapiejko to meet
the specific claim features recited therein. However, as
applied by the examiner, Kii and Rapiejko do not make up for
the deficiencies of Majeed, Adachi, and Chan as already
discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2 and 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Majeed,
Adachi, Chan, Kii, and Rapiejko cannot be sustained.
As for claims 4 and 6, each of which depends indirectly
from claims 3 and 1, respectively, the examiner additionally
applied Kamimura and Kawagoe to meet the specific claim
features recited therein. However, as applied by the
examiner, Kamimura and Kawagoe do not make up for the
deficiencies of Majeed, Adachi, Chan, and Rapiejko, as already
discussed above. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4 and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Majeed,
Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko, Kamimura, and Kawagoe cannot be
sustained. Furthermore, the examiner’s statement of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007