Appeal No. 2004-0700
Application No. 09/531,671
Nishizawa et al. (Nishizawa) 5,910,010 Jun. 8, 1999
(PCT filed Apr. 5, 1995)
Claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26 and 31-33 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Khandros.
Claims 16, 22, 27-29, 34 and 35 as well as claims 37 and 38
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Khandros in view of Sato.
The remaining claims on appeal stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Khandros in various
combinations with the other references listed above.
As indicated on page 4 of the brief (i.e., the supplemental
appeal brief filed May 5, 2003, as Paper No. 22), certain of the
appealed claims have been separately grouped by the appellant.
In our disposition of this appeal, we have individually
considered these separately grouped claims to the extent that
they also have been separately argued. See Ex parte Schier, 21
USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). Also see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellant and by the examiner, we refer to the aforementioned
brief and to the answer for a complete exposition thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007