Appeal No. 2003-0469
Application No. 09/317,480
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are as follows:
Benveniste 5,809,423 Sep. 15, 1998
Przelomiec 5,960,351 Sep. 28, 1999
(filed Feb. 26, 1997)
Yu et al. (Yu) 6,047,186 Apr. 04, 2000
(filed Oct. 06, 1997)
Borst et al. (Borst) 6,119,011 Sep. 12, 2000
( filed Mar. 05, 1998)
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Yu in view of Benveniste. Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Benveniste and Borst. Claims 4,
5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in
view of Benveniste, Borst and Przelomiec. Throughout the opinion we make
reference to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007