Appeal No. 2004-1583
Application No. 09/760,962
Pike et al. 5,382,400 Jan. 17, 1995
(Pike ’400)
Pike et al. 5,759,926 Jun. 02, 1998
(Pike ’926)
Nozaki et al. JP 6-166936 Jun. 14, 1994
(JP ’936)(published JP application)2
Claims 28, 29, and 32 through 45 on appeal stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Baravian, Pike ’400, Haid, JP ’936, and Pike ’926.
(Examiner’s answer mailed Nov. 17, 2003, paper 15, pages 3-6.)
Separately, claims 28, 29, and 32 through 45 on appeal stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Pike ’926, Baravian, and Pike ’400.3 (Id.
at 6-7.)
We affirm both rejections.4
To aid us in determining whether the examiner applied the
prior art correctly against the appealed claims, we must first
2 We attach to this decision a copy of the original
Japanese patent document together with an English translation
prepared by the Translation Branch of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO).
3 The examiner inadvertently included canceled claims 30
and 31 in the statement of the rejection.
4 The appellants submit that the appealed claims stand or
fall together. (Appeal brief filed Sep. 22, 2003, paper 14, p.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007