Appeal No. 2004-0680
Application No. 10/057,026
THE PRIOR ART
The references relied on by the examiner to support the
final rejection are:
Taub et al. (Taub) 5,308,442 May 3, 1994
Mitani et al. (Mitani) 5,831,648 Nov. 3, 1998
Hawkins et al. (Hawkins) 6,214,245 Apr. 10, 2001
Moon et al. (Moon) 2002/0012027 Jan. 31, 2002
Leban et al. (Leban) 0 317 171 May 24, 1989
(European Patent Document)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 11, 12, 14 through 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leban in view of
Mitani, Taub and Hawkins.
Claims 13, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Leban in view of Mitani, Taub, Hawkins
and Moon.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 9) and answer
(Paper No. 10) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.3,4
to correct these informalities.
3 Although the statements of the second rejection in the
final rejection (Paper No. 5) and answer do not include claim 19,
the accompanying explanations of the rejection indicate that the
omission was inadvertent.
4 In the final rejection, claims 11 through 20 also stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007