Appeal No. 2004-0650 3
Application No. 09/894,265
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Yaklin 6,157,222 Dec. 05, 2000
Peon et al. (Peon) 6,195,030 Feb. 27, 2001
Ryu 6,430,244 Aug. 06, 2002
(filed Apr. 05, 1999)
Danki et al. (Danki)1 JP401109917 Apr. 26, 1989
Claims 1-7 and 10-13, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of
obviousness, the Examiner offers Danki in view of Yaklin and Ryu
with respect to claims 1-5 and 10-13, and adds Peon to the basic
combination with respect to claims 6 and 7.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 15, dated April
21, 2003) and Answer (Paper No. 16, dated June 19, 2003) for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of the
rejection, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
arguments set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s
1 A copy of a translation provided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office is included with this decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007