Appeal No. 2003-0208 Page 3
Application No. 08/578,996
Claims 3, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Takiguchi in view of Komuro.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Takiguchi in view of Komuro and Ishida.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 33, mailed October 5, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 39, mailed
July 11, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (Paper No. 38, filed June 5, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 41, filed
September 9, 2002) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, to the
declaration of Motonubu Onoda (Paper No. 26, filed November 14, 2000) and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007