Appeal No. 2003-1776
Application No. 09/383,923
Maekawa 5,166,671 Nov. 24, 1992
Lee 5,523,772 Jun. 04, 1996
Ono et al. (Ono) 5,784,042 Jul. 21, 1998
Kubota et al. (Kubota) 6,335,778 Jan. 01, 2002
(Filed Jul. 28, 1997)
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Maekawa in view of Ono. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maekawa and Ono further in view of Lee. Claim 28 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa and Ono further in view of
Kubota.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed January 13, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ supplemental brief (Paper No. 16, filed
September 18, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 18, filed March 13, 2003) for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007