Appeal No. 2002-1260 Page 3
Application No. 09/137,179
Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Liao. Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Liaw. Claim 6
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Liao or Liaw. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao or Liaw, each in view of
Molinaro.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for an exposition of
the opposing viewpoints expressed by appellants and the examiner
concerning the issues before us in this appeal.2
OPINION
We have reviewed the record, including all of the arguments
and evidence advanced by both the examiner and the appellants in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us to
conclude that the examiner’s rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse all of the aforementioned rejections.
2 We note that claim 2 refers to claim 9 as a claim from
which it depends. That reference to claim 9 in claim 2
represents an obvious error since a claim numbered as claim 9 is
not currently present in this application. Claims 5 and 6 are
also involved via their dependency on claim 2. Consequently, we
consider claims 2, 5 and 6 as including an inadvertent error and
construe claim 2 as if depending from claim 1 for purposes of
deciding this appeal. The examiner and appellants should address
this matter prior to final disposition of this application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007