Appeal No. 2002-0265 Page 15
Application No. 08/787745
rejection under Section 112. Further in this regard, however, the reasoning we
articulated in our refusal to sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be overlooked in future
prosecution of claims 5-9 and 11-21, should the indefiniteness present therein be
overcome by appropriate recasting of the terminology in issue.
The rejection of claims 7-9, 11, 13-16 and 18 as being unpatentable over
Akatsuka ‘450 in view of Hogan and Iwanaga is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka ‘450 in view of
Hogan, Iwanaga and Akatsuka ‘396 is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka ‘450 in view of
Hogan, Iwanaga and Huang is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka ‘450 in
view of Hogan is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 21 as being unpatentable over Akatsuka ‘450 in view of
Iwanaga is not sustained.
CONCLUSION
None of the examiner’s rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007