Appeal No. 2002-2276
Application No. 09/472,702
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chambers in view of Luo.1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs2 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Chambers fully meets the invention as
recited in claims 1, 11, 12, 20, and 21. In addition, we are of
1 As indicated at page 2 of the Answer, the Lee reference (U.S. Patent
No. 5,751,183) has been withdrawn from this rejection.
2 The Appeal Brief was filed May 8, 2002 (Paper No. 15). In response to
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 17, 2002 (Paper No. 16), a Reply Brief was
filed August 19, 2002 (Paper No. 17), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated September 10, 2002 (Paper
No. 18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007