Appeal No. 2002-1860
Application No. 09/204,275
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Akiyama 5,289,457 Feb. 22, 1994
Satoh et al. (Satoh) 5,903,531 May 11, 1999
(filed Feb. 13, 1997)
Fujiura 6,052,359 Apr. 18, 2000
(filed Aug. 19, 1997)
Claims 6-8, 33-36, 38, 39, 42, 43, 48, 49, and 51-53 stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Fujiura. Claims 1-5, 37, 40, and 50 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
offers Fujiura in view of Akiyama with respect to claims 1-5, and
Fujiura in view of Satoh with respect to claims 37, 40, and 50.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
1 At page 2 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates that the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, has been withdrawn.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed June 15, 2001 (Paper No. 22). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated July 17, 2001 (Paper No. 25), a Reply Brief was
filed September 13, 2001 (Paper No. 28), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 19, 2001 (Paper
No. 31).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007