Appeal No. 2004-0376 Page 3
Application No. 09/457,286
Claims 3 to 6, 9 to 12, 15, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over van Elten in view of Yuyama.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 15, mailed February 18, 2003) and the answer (Paper No. 19,
mailed July 15, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 18, filed May 5, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed
July 21, 2003) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection based on van Elten
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 14, 16 and 18 to 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by van Elten.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007