Appeal No. 2001-0877
Application 08/530,434
Takahashi et al. (Takahashi) 5,583,662 Dec. 10, 1996
(filed Apr. 19, 1994)
Fujii et al. (Fujii) 5,585,926 Dec. 17, 1996
(filed Dec. 07, 1992)
The admitted prior art described in appellants’ specification.
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Fujii.
2. Claims 1, 2, 7, 31 and 33 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel
in view of the admitted prior art.
3. Claims 3-6, 8-11 and 22-26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel
in view of the admitted prior art and further in view of Wolff.
4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view of the
admitted prior art and further in view of Takahashi.
5. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view of the
admitted prior art and Takahashi and further in view of Katou.
6. Claims 15-17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegel in view
of the admitted prior art and further in view of Davidson.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007