Appeal No. 1999-1926
Application No. 08/675,938
abuts against plate 14 which is supporting the dielectric insert
18 (see Figure 4 of Mizumura). Furthermore, to use glue to
attach the insert to the plate would have been obvious.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 42 over
Mizumura.
In conclusion, since Appellants have not presented any
arguments relating to any other claims individually and we have
sustained the rejection of the independent claims taking into
consideration the arguments presented by the Appellants
respectively, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claims
9-11, 23, 26, 30, 31, 34, 37 and 38 by Shen; the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 20, 21, 24, 33, 35, and 36 over
Shen and Hendrick; claims 27 and 32 over Shen and Dorothy; claim
25 over Shen, Hendrick and Dorothy; and claim 42 over Mizumura.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 7-11,
20, 21, 23-27, 30-38 and 42 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007