Appeal No. 2004-0717
Application No. 10/099,605 Page 4
Claim 193 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Kobayashi, Pearson and Lim.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed
August 26, 2003) and the final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed
February 20, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 9,
filed June 9, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed
September 29, 2003) for appellant's arguments thereagainst. Only
those arguments actually made by appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered.
3 We note that in the examiner’s answer (pp. 3-4), claim 19
is no less than 6 times. The examiner separately rejects claim
19 is being over Goldberg alone 3 times. Once rejected a group
of claims 1-3, and 5-20; and twice claim 19 alone is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg. In
addition, claim 19 is rejected 3 times as being unpatentable
over Goldberg, Kobayashi and Pearson; once under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Goldberg, Kobayahsi, Pearson and
Meier, and once under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Goldberg, Kobayahsi, Pearson and Lim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007