Appeal No. 2004-1125
Application No. 09/923,998
II. claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Erwin (answer, page 3; final Office action, page 6);
III. claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Erwin in view of Lowenstein (answer, page 3; final
Office action, pages 3-4); and
IV. claims 1, 5, 6, 12 through 17, 21 through 27, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Ogawa
(answer, page 3; final Office action, pages 4-6).
We affirm rejection I but reverse rejections II through IV.1
I. Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 18, 28, & 30:
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Erwin
Prior to addressing the merits of the examiner’s rejection,
we determine the scope and meaning of certain terms that appear
in appealed claim 1. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457,
1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
1 With respect to rejection I, the appellant groups the
rejected claims as follows: (1) claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 18; (2)
claim 8; and (3) claims 28 and 30. (Appeal brief filed Oct. 21,
2003, paper 14, pp. 3-5.) We therefore select claims 1, 8, and
28 from each of the appellant’s claim groupings and decide this
appeal as to the examiner’s ground of rejection on the basis of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007