Appeal No. 2005-0097
Application No. 09/645,172
Claims 2 through 4, 21 through 23 and 39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ubillos in
view of Rosenberg.
Claims 5 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ubillos in view of Rosenberg and
Kinoshita.
Claims 6 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ubillos in view of Rosenberg, Kinoshita
and Goldberg.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 8 and 10) and the answer (Paper No. 9) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner regarding the merits
of these rejections.1
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 9 through 13, 28
through 32 and 40 as being anticipated by Ubillos
We shall not sustain this rejection.
To begin with, the rejection is unsound on its face. The
Ubillos patent issued on November 26, 2002, based on Application
No. 09/287,720, filed April 7, 1999. The instant application has
an actual and effective filing date of August 24, 2000. Hence,
1 The examiner’s statement of the § 102(b) rejection (see
page 3 in the answer) mistakenly includes canceled claim 38.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007