Appeal No. 2004-2234
Application No. 09/881,361
Claims 2, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Kochevar, Tarlow,
Yoneyama and Sasamoto.
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Kochevar, Tarlow and
Bingman.
Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Kochevar, Tarlow and
Allen.
Claims 16 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shimazaki in view of Kochevar, Tarlow,
Yoneyama, Sasamoto and Allen.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (filed
April 11, 2003, July 24, 2003 and June 1, 2004) and to the main
and supplemental answers (mailed May 19, 2003 and March 31, 2004)
for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner
regarding the merits of these rejections.1
1 In response to the above noted remand, the examiner
obtained and appended to the supplemental answer an English
language translation of the Shimazaki reference. Also, although
the examiner’s statement of the first rejection in the final
rejection and the answers does not refer to claims 17 and 18, the
record indicates that the omission was inadvertent and recognized
as such by the appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007