Appeal No. 1997-3338
Application No. 08/402,252
Shappir et al. (Shappir) 5,258,333 Nov.
02, 1993
Lee et al. (Lee) 5,266,521 Nov. 30,
1993
Tsang et al. (Tsang) 5,272,666 Dec. 21,
1993
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Koyanagi, Scovell,
Lee, Sun, and Sandhu (examiner’s answer, pages 4-6).
Similarly, claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Koyanagi,
Scovell, Tsang, Shappir, Lee, Sun, and Sandhu (examiner’s
answer, pages 7-9). Additionally, claim 13 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Koyanagi, Scovell, Tsang, Shappir, Lee, Sun, and
Sandhu (examiner’s answer, pages 9-12).
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments and evidence advanced by both the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we
reverse all of the aforementioned rejections. The reasons for
our determination follow.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007