Appeal No. 2003-1366
Application No. 09/488,075 Page 3
Varanasi et al. (Varanasi) 5,798,144 Aug. 25, 1998
Masakara et al. (Masakara) 6,037,277 Mar. 14, 2000
Smirnov et al. (Kotelnikov1), Russian Pat. Appl. No. 2,089,499,
published September 10, 1997.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18 and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Masakara and Gnade
in view of Kotelnikov. Claims 8, 11-14 and 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Masakara and
Gnade in view of Kotelnikov, Varanasi and Shimizu.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answers for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ viewpoint in that the examiner has failed to carry
1 The examiner and appellants refer to this reference as
Kotelnikov et al. Also, our references to Kotelnikov in this
decision is to the English language translation of the published
Russian patent application. The record reflects that a copy of
the translation was submitted to appellants with the examiner’s
answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007