Appeal No. 2002-0699
Application No. 09/401,740
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Breton ‘607, Takazawa, Ball, Fujioka and Tobias. We determine
that the examiner does not rely on Ball, Fujioka and Tobias to
remedy the deficiencies indicated above. Thus, for the same
reasons indicated supra, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Breton ‘607, Takazawa, Ball and Fujioka, Yaegashi
and Wickramanayake. We determine that Yaegashi and
Wickramanayake do not remedy the deficiencies indicated above for
the reasons set forth at pages 58-65 of the Brief. Thus, for the
same reasons indicated supra and the Brief, we reverse the
examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Breton ‘607, Takazawa, Ball and Fujioka,
Shimomura, Yaegashi and Malhotra ‘390. We reverse this rejection
for the reasons indicated supra and at pages 65-70 of the Brief.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007