Appeal No. 98-0816
Application 08/286,287
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Hishida in view of Schuh, further in view of Müller.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 26, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Okada in view of Schuh.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Okada in view of Schuh, further in view of Kanaya.
Claims 2 to 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Hishida or Okada in view of Schuh, further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Hishida or Okada in view of Schuh, further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen and Kloeppel.
Claims 7 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Hishida or Okada in view of Schuh, further in view of Frugé.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
relies upon Hishida or Okada in view of Schuh, further in view of Müller.
Claims 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Elsasser in view of Cossette, further in view of Tatukawa.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Elsasser in view of Cossette and Tatukawa, further in view of Hoyer-Ellefsen.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007