Appeal No. 2003-0907
Application No. 09/337,278
evidence, we conclude that the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the combined
teachings of the cited prior art. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Miyashita and Kanno; claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Miyashita, Kanno and Takehiko;
claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Miyashita and Kanno, as applied to claims 1 and 5, further combined with
Simmons; claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Miyashita, Kanno and Takehiko, as applied to claims 1 and 5,
further combined with Simmons; claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Miyashita, Kanno and Simmons, as applied to
claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 further combined with Chung; claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007