Appeal No. 2001-2146
Application No. 09/270,588
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS
) AND
)INTERFERENCES
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PL/lp
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
Although I share the majority’s view that the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art references, I do
not see any reason to remand this case to the examiner. I write separately to clarify my
reasons for concurrence and to state my reasons for dissent.
As pointed out by the examiner and the appellants, the claims on appeal are rejected as
follows:
1) Claims 1 through 7, 9 through 14, 16 through 26, 28 through 30 and 33 through 36
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Liao in view of Wright and Miyashita; and
2) Claims 8, 15 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Liao in view of
Wright, Miyashita and Sato.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007