Appeal No. 2001-1093
Application No. 09/252,186
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Ho (‘841) 4,898,841 Feb. 6, 1990
Ho (‘214) 4,954,214 Sept. 4, 1990
Hause et al. (Hause) 5,953,626 Sept. 14, 1999
(filed June 5, 1996)
Ahn 6,037,248 Mar. 14, 2000
(filed June 13, 1997)
Claims 1 through 101, 21 through 24 and 28 through 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Hause in view of Ahn and Ho ‘214.
Claims 25 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hause in view of Ahn, Ho ‘214 and
Ho ‘841.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 16 and 19)
and the answer (paper number 18) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 10 and 21 through 31.
Appellant and the examiner agree that Hause fails to
1The provisional double patenting rejection of claims 1
through 10 is no longer before us as a result of the submission
of a terminal disclaimer (paper number 20).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007