Appeal No. 2001-0513
Application No. 09/096,550
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14 through 16, and 19 through 21
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Artieri.
Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Artieri in view of Nishiura.
Claims 5, 12, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Artieri in view of Kim.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Artieri in view of Mendenhall.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed August 8, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
11, filed May 23, 2000) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10,
11, 14 through 16, and 19 through 21 and the obviousness
rejections of claims 2, 5 through 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, and
23.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007