Appeal No. 2004-1176 Page 2
Application No. 09/232,751
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Teicher et al. (Teicher) 5,933,813 Aug. 3, 1999
(filed Apr. 15, 1996)
Kamakura et al. (Kamakura) 6,047,310 Apr. 4, 2000
(filed Jul. 10, 1996)
Tso et al. (Tso) 6,047,327 Apr. 4, 2000
(filed Feb. 16, 1996)
Gardenswartz et al. (Gardenswartz) 6,055,573 Apr. 25, 2000
(filed Jan. 7, 1999)
Williams et al. (Williams) 6,075,971 Jun. 13, 2000
(filed Mar. 27, 1998)
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14, 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Williams in view of Tso and Teicher.
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Williams in view of Tso, Teicher and Kamakura.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Williams in view of Tso, Teicher and Gardenswartz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 5, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed September 22, 2003) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007