Appeal No. 2003-0024
Application No. 09/748,948
claim 2. (Brief, p. 9). The Examiner has presented reasonable arguments as to why the
invention of the claims 7 and 8 are unpatentable. The Appellants have not specifically
rebutted the Examiner’s position that the additional limitations of claims 7 and 8 are
unpatentable. Thus, for the reasons stated above, in the Final Rejection and in the
Answer, the rejection is affirmed.
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having evaluated
the prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellants’ arguments and evidence, we
conclude that the subject matter of claims 2 to 8 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art from the combined teachings of the cited prior art.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 to 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Baik and Motoki; and the rejection of
claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Baik, Motoki and Fleming are affirmed.
OTHER ISSUES
An information disclosure statement, filed March 17, 2003, has been
submitted by Appellants. The Examiner should review Appellants’ submission prior
to disposition of the application.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007