Appeal No. 2002-0588
Application No. 08/566,206
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Knutson and Philips
further in view of Ueda. Claims 19-21, 24, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Philips further in view of Knutson.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto
in view of Philips further in view of Knutson and Matsumoto. Claim 27 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Philips further
in view of Knutson in view of Ueda.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 42, mailed Jul. 13, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 39, filed Mar. 8, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 43, filed Sep. 19, 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
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that Knutson teaches “directly away” from the invention (brief at
page 4) and Philips “teaches away” from a bipolar supply (brief at page 6). We disagree
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007