Appeal No. 2001-1847
Application No. 08/861,157
Claims 2, 3, and 17 through 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg in view of
Gold.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Greenberg in view of Gold and Prins.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Greenberg in view of Prins.
Claims 4 and 7 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Greenberg.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Park in view of Greenberg and Gold.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed January 14, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 16, filed November 3, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 18,
filed March 13, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 26.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007