Appeal No. 1999-2381
Application No. 08/586,434
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 23-26 and 29-35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dent in
view of Takagi, Wilcox and Pye.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view of Takagi, Wilcox, Pye and
Huang.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dent in view of Takagi, Pye, Wilcox and
McGirr.
Claims 10-13, 16, 17, 20 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dent in view of
Takagi, Pye, Wilcox and Tsao . 2
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dent in view of Takagi, Pye,
Wilcox, McGirr and Huang.
Claims 37-40, 43 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
2We have assumed that claim 17 was inadvertently omitted in
the statement of the rejection in both the final rejection
(Paper No. 15) and the answer. The paragraph bridging pages
17 and 18 of the final rejection indicates claim 17 is obvious
over Dent, Takagi, Pye, Wilcox and Tsao. The brief
acknowledges at page 2, line 13, that claim 17 stands finally
rejected. Lastly, at page 16, lines 4-8, the answer argues
that claim 17 is obvious over Dent, Takagi, Pye, Wilcox and
Tsao.
4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007