Appeal No. 2003-0750
Application 09/310,650
Claims 56-71, 74-78, 80, 81, 88-94, 97, 109-111, 114, 117
and 118 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nagao.1 Claims 72, 73, 79, 82-87, 95, 96, 98-108,
112, 113, 115, and 116 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). As evidence of obviousness the Examiner offers Nagao
in view of Wical with respect to claims 72, 73, 79, 82-87, and
115, Nagao in view of Suda with respect to claims 95, 96, 112,
113, and 116, and Nagao in view of Wical and Krawchuk with
respect to claims 98-108.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs, the final Office
action, and Answer for the respective details.2
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
1 Claim 118, although inadvertently omitted from the statement of the
grounds of rejection, is intended to be included in the rejection as indicated
by the Examiner (final Office action, page 7, para. 24).
2 Subsequent to the final Office action mailed March 5, 2002 (Paper No.
12, the Appeal Brief was filed September 9, 2002 (Paper No. 18). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated November 14, 2002 (Paper No. 19), a Reply Brief
was filed January 27, 2003 (Paper No. 20), which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated February 4, 2003
(Paper No. 21).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007