Appeal No. 2002-0376
Application No. 09/072,137
Lee 5.363,313 Nov. 08, 1994
Edwards et al. (Edwards) 5,625,568 Apr. 29, 1997
Kamdar 5,636,132 Jun. 03, 1997
Boyle et al. (Boyle) 5,682,322 Oct. 28, 1997
Kawakami 5,729,469 Mar.17, 1998
Greidinger et al. (Greidinger) 5,856,927 Jan. 05, 1999
Claims 1 ,7 , 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Lee. Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Boyle or Kamdar or Edwards. Claims 1 ,7, 9, and 12 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kawakami or Greidinger. Claims 2-6, 8,
10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (Lee or
Kawakami or Greidinger) in view of the taking of Official Notice.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 14, mailed May 24, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Mar. 9, 2001)
and reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed Jul. 24, 2001) for appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007