Appeal No. 2003-1801
Application 09/559,347
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the
examiner in the rejections before us:
Okumura et al. (Okumura) 5,480,733 Jan. 2, 1996
Chen et al. (Chen ‘370) 5,733,370 Mar. 31, 1998
Taguchi et al. (Taguchi) 5,874,376 Feb. 23, 1999
Ross et al. (Ross) 5,980,997 Nov. 9, 1999
Chen et al. (Chen ‘890) 6,120,890 Sept. 19, 2000
(filed Nov. 5, 1998)
Starcke et al. (Starcke) 6,183,828 B1 Feb. 6, 2001
(filed May 20, 1998)
Huang et al. (Huang) 6,416,881 B1 July 9, 2002
(filed May 15, 2000)
The admitted prior art described on pages 4 and 6 of the subject
application.
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Chen ‘890 in view of
Ross.
Claims 2, 11, 18 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ross in view of
Starcke and Taguchi, and the remaining appealed claims stand
correspondingly rejected over various combinations of these
references and the other prior art listed above.
We refer to the Brief filed January 14, 2003 and Reply
Brief as well as to the Answer for a complete exposition of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007