Ex parte HOUSTON - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-1939                                                        
          Application No. 08/862,449                                                  


          Tanigawa et al. (Tanigawa)    5,740,099                Apr. 14,             
          1998                                                                        
                                                  (filed Feb.  5,                     
          1996)                                                                       
          Masui                         6-151854            May  31, 1994             
          (Published Japanese Patent Application)                                     
               Claims 1 through 3, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of              
          Lee.                                                                        
               Claims 1 through 4, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35                   
          U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of              
          Lee and Klein.                                                              
               Claims 1 through 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 25 stand rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa                
          in view of Lee, Klein, Misawa or Azuma.                                     
               Claims 1 through 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 25 stand rejected                
          under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa                
          in view of Lee, Klein, Misawa or Azuma in further view of                   
          Shino, Masui and Noguchi.                                                   
               Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 9 and 11)               
          and the answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions               
          of the appellant and the examiner.                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007