Appeal No. 2003-1937
Application No. 09/522,296
Minabe 5,961,394 Oct. 5, 1999
Drajan, Jr., et al. 6,033,318 Mar. 7, 2000
(Drajan)
Mockridge GB 2 230 459 Oct. 24, 1990
(Published UK Patent Application)
Claims 1, 6 through 12, 14, 15, 18, 28 and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mockridge in
view of Take, Helmstetter and Drajan.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Endo in view of Take,
Helmstetter and Drajan.
Claims 1, 13, 20 and 211 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mockridge in view of Take,
Helmstetter and Drajan as applied above, and further in view of
Minabe.
1 We note that claim 21 is dependent from claim 2, which, in
turn, is dependent from claim 1. Thus, the examiner's rejection
of claim 21 over a combination of prior art references which is
different from the combination of references applied in the
rejection of claim 2, below, is somewhat confusing. Our
disposition of the examiner's rejections on appeal makes this a
moot issue for purposes of the appeal.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007