Appeal No. 2002-1212
Application No. 09/349,745
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Coffey et al. (Coffey) 5,583,725 Dec. 10, 1996
Kim et al. (Kim) 5,637,235 Jun. 10, 1997
Kanai 5,850,323 Dec. 15, 1998
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 to 10, 12 to 17 and 19 to 23 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Coffey and Kanai; and
claims 1 to 10, 12 to 17 and 19 to 23 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Coffey and Kim. (Answer, pp. 3 to 9).
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s § 103
rejections are not well founded. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785,
787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and Appellant concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer
and the Brief and Reply Brief.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007