Appeal No. 2004-0633
Application No. 10/011,198
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yu.
Claims 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ito in view of Yu.
Claims 34-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cronin in view of Ito and Yu.
Claims 38-39 and 56-58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Cronin in view of Yu.
Claims 40 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cronin in view of Liu.
Claims 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Cronin in view of Ito and Yu.
Claims 44-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ito in view of Yu.
On page 2 of the brief, appellants group the claims into
two groupings. Appellants group claim 37 into Group I, and
appellants group claims 31-36, 38-47 and 56-58 into Group II.
On page 2 of the brief, appellants indicate that the claims in
Group II do not necessarily fall together. On page 1 of the
reply brief, appellants refer to section 7 of the appeal brief,
and also refer to page 10 of the appeal brief, in an effort to
show that appellants have explained why the claims in Group II
do not necessarily fall together. To the extent that any one
claim is specifically and separately argued regarding
patentability, we will consider such claim in this appeal.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2003).
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer, and the applied references of
record. This review has led us to conclude that the examiner’s
rejections are well-founded.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007