Appeal No. 2001-1874
Application No. 09/072,758
Claims 15-18, Section 103 rejection over Brajovic and Kawahito
We find no separate arguments from appellant in response to the Section 103
rejection of claims 15-18 over Brajovic and Kawahito. Appellant thus relies on the
arguments in support of base claims 9 and 14.
We refer to the examiner’s findings in support of the rejection of claims 15 and
18, and sustain the rejection. However, since claims 16 and 17 incorporate the
limitations of claim 9, and Kawahito as applied fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Brajovic as applied against claim 9, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17.
Claims 4, 10, and 19
We do not sustain the Section 103 rejections of claim 4, 10, or 19. Neither
Kramer, Horn, nor Standley as applied remedy the deficiencies in Brajovic as applied
against base claim 1 or 9.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Aizawa
is affirmed. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Brajovic is affirmed. The rejection of claims 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aizawa and Kawahito is affirmed. The rejection of claims 15 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brajovic and Kawahito is affirmed.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007