Appeal No. 2001-0327
Application 08/990,295
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 16 and
18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lo in view of Nakagawa. The details of this
rejection are set forth on pages 3-5 of the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 20).1
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
given careful consideration to appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination which follows.
1We note that the examiner’s position as set forth in the
answer is somewhat different than that which was set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 8). However, appellants have
filed a reply brief (Paper No. 22) addressing the examiner’s
new position and also the miscellaneous communication mailed
to appellants on March 24, 2000 (Paper No. 19).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007