Appeal No. 2001-1936
Application 09/049,478
of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon Ceshkovsky in
view of Maeda, the second stated rejection.
In conclusion, we have reversed the rejection of claim 7
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We have also
reversed the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
light of Ceshkovsky in view of Maeda. We have sustained the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Matsui. The last stated
rejection, that of claims 3, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
the alternative based upon Matsui in view of Maeda and Matsui in
view of Yamamoto is also sustained. Because of the unique
evidentiary considerations surrounding the rejection of claims
1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ceshkovsky in
view of Maeda, we have noted that the examiner should consider
the institution of new rejections within 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, since we have not sustained rejections encompassing
all claims on appeal, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-
in-part.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007