Appeal No. 2002-1940
Application 08/932,649
Claims 1-3, 15, 16, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Aviv
in view of Kuo.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief of the
appellants, and the examiner's statement of the rejection of the
claims on appeal in the Office action, Paper No. 16, mailed on
February 2, 2001 (answer, page 3), as well as the responsive
arguments in the answer.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the above-noted
Office action and answer, we sustain the rejection of all claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Although page 3 of the principal brief on appeal effectively
groups independent claims 1, 15, 16 and 24 together, the
effective arguments are presented in the succeeding pages of the
brief as to independent claims 1 and 15. Method independent
claim 16 corresponds to apparatus independent claim 1 and method
independent claim 24 corresponds to apparatus independent claim
15. Separate arguments are presented as to dependent claims 2,
3 and 25.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007