Appeal No. 2001-1465 Page 3
Application No. 09/048,522
(3) Claims 3, 4, 6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spivy in view of Noé, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Lundgren.
(4) Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Spivy in view of Noé and Lundgren, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Lüber.
(5) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Spivy in view of Noé and Lundgren, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of
Taguchi.
(6) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Spivy in view of Noé and Lundgren, as applied to claims 1 and 2, and further in view of
Aihara.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections and to
the brief (Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007