Appeal No. 2000-0239 Page 4
Application No. 08/839,843
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Li et al. (“Li”) 5,439,731 Aug. 8, 1995
(filed Mar. 11, 1994)
Drake et al. (“Drake”) 4,121,241 Oct. 17, 1978
Saito JP 1-101653 Apr. 19, 1989.1
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Li. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Saito in view of Drake.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-17 but did not err in
rejecting claims 18 and 19. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
Our opinion addresses the following rejections:
• anticipation rejection of claims 1-17
• obviousness rejection of claims 18 and 19.
I. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1-17
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007