Ex parte TYAN et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1997-0495                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/399,787                                                                                                             

                 (Yamada)                                                                (filed Dec. 28, 1992)                                          
                 Kuroiwa et al.                                        1-137437                                     May  30,                            
                 1989                                                                                                                                   
                 (Kuroiwa) (JP)                                                                                                                         





                          All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35                                                                           
                 U.S.C.                                                                                                                                 
                 § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroiwa and Chen in view of                                                                           
                 Yamada.1                                                                                                                               
                          We refer to the brief and to the answer for the                                                                               
                 respective positions advocated by the appellants and the                                                                               
                 examiner respectively concerning the above noted rejection.                                                                            
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain this                                                                       
                 rejection.                                                                                                                             
                          The examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious                                                                     
                 to one skilled in the art to add a reflective layer alone or                                                                           
                 with a dielectric layer as taught by Yamada . . . or Chen . .                                                                          


                          1As indicated by the appellants on page 4 of the brief,                                                                       
                 the appealed claims will stand or fall together.                                                                                       
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007