Appeal No. 2001-2516 Page 2
Application No. 09/286,047
The prior art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claim are:
Bao et al. (Bao) 5,534,028 Jul. 9, 1996
Ray et al. (Ray) 5,824,093 Oct. 20, 1998
The rejections
Claims 1 to 3, 5 to 11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ray.
Claims 4, 12 to 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ray.
Claim 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over ray in
view of Bao.
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. 12, mailed February 26, 2001) and the supplemental answer (Paper No. ,
mailed ) for the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief (Paper No. 11, filed December 8, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed April
23, 2001) 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