Appeal No. 97-2457 Page 4
Application No. 08/366,376
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20-22 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Spindt in view of van der Wilk and Kuroda. Claims 6 and 8
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Spindt in view of van der Wilk and Kuroda further in view
of Nomura.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants or
examiner, we refer to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection
advanced by the examiner, and the evidence relied on by the
examiner to support the rejection. We have also considered
the appellants’ arguments contained in the briefs along with
the examiner’s arguments in rebuttal contained in the
examiner’s answer. After considering the record before us, it
is our view that the collective evidence replied on and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007