Appeal No. 1997-3701 5
Application No. 08/141,457
Claims 2, 4 through 7, 11, 12, and 17 through 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Lok or Fuseya.
Claims 2 through 7, 11, 12, and 17 through 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Okamura or J61/250641.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the examiner, substantially for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, that the rejections of claims 2 through 7, 9 through 13, 15, 17 through 22
and 25 are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm each of the rejections and add the
following for emphasis.
As an initial matter, the appellants have stated that claims 2, 3, 6, 9 through 13,
15, 17, and 18 are grouped together for patentability. Claims 4, 5, 19 through 22 and
25 should be considered separately. See Brief, page 4. Accordingly, we select claim 2,
an independent claim, as representative of appellants’ claims 2, 3, 6, 9 through 13, 15,
17 and 18 that are grouped together and grant separate consideration to claims 4, 5, 7,
19 through 22 and 25, the balance of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192 (c)(
7)(1995).
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Each of the primary references, which we have identified as Ichijima, Lestina, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007