Appeal No. 2000-1515 Page 3 Application No. 08/687,195 Fujisawa et al. (“Fujisawa”) 5,729,618 Mar. 17, 1998 (filed Mar. 17, 1995) Suzuki et al. (“Suzuki”) 4,894,779 Jan. 16, 1990 Morgan et al. (“Morgan”) 5,689,724 Nov. 18, 1997 (filed Oct. 11, 1995). Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Adachi in view of Fujisawa. Claims 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 27, 28 and 29 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Adachi in view of Fujisawa further in view of Suzuki. Claims 16, 18, and 23 stand rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Adachi in view of Fujisawa further in view of Morgan. OPINION After considering the record, we are persuaded that the examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 6-10, 12-18, 21-23 and 26-29. Accordingly, we affirm. Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we address the two points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007