Appeal No. 2004-0547
Application No. 09/536,894
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 9, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamadera in view of Lazik. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamadera in view of Lazik and Mun.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamadera in
view of Lazik and Gerszberg. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Yamadera in view of Lazik and Ratner.
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 appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief1
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and examiner, for the reasons
stated infra, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9, 13 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants argue, on page 8 of the brief, that there is no incentive or suggestion
to combine Yamadera in view of Lazik. On page 7 of the brief, appellants assert that
1 This decision is based upon the Appeal Brief received August 14, 2003.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007