Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
recording medium, the aforenoted disclosure evinces an
expectation of success for using a B2 structure whereas no such
expectation exists for using an A2 structure for the reasons
previously explained.
In light of the foregoing, we consider the applied
references inadequate to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to independent claims 18 and 48 as well
as with respect to the claims which depend therefrom. We cannot
sustain, therefore, the examiner’s section 103 rejection of
claims 18-25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 48-55, 57, 58, 60 and 61 as being
unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lambeth. Moreover, because
the Shin reference fails to supply the deficiencies discussed
above, we also cannot sustain the section 103 rejection of claims
26, 29, 32, 56, 59 and 62 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in
view of Lambeth and further in view of Shin.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007