Appeal No. 2002-0328
Application No. 09/250,324
Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wei.2
Claims 10-28, 33-35 and 403 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Spindt,
Mazurek and Wakitani.
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hughes.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21, mailed
March 7, 2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal
brief (Paper No. 20, December 6, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 23, filed May 7, 2001) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate that claims
1, 2, 4 and 5-9 stand or fall together, claim 3 stands or falls
alone, claims 10, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21 stand or fall together,
claims 11-13 and 15 stand or fall together, claims 18, 19, 22, 25
and 26 stand or fall together and claims 23 and 24 stand or fall
2 The statement of the rejection in the final Office action (Paper No.
15, mailed July 5, 2000) indicates that claims 1-9 are anticipated by Wei,
whereas the body of the rejection correctly refers to the rejection as one
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3 Although claim 44 is not listed in the rejection, it appears from the
final Office Action (Paper No. 15, mailed July 5, 2000) that the Examiner
intended to include claim 44 in the rejection of its base claim 10.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007