Appeal No. 2005-0239
Application No. 10/145,421
PRIOR ART
The examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Lowell1 5,581,194 Dec. 3, 1996
Choi 5,780,330 Jul. 14, 1998
Lin et al. (Lin) 6,362,055 B2 Mar. 26, 2002
(Filed Aug. 31, 1998)
REJECTION
The claims on appeal are rejected as follows:
I) Claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
the disclosure of Lin2;
II) Claims 2 and 7 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Choi and Lin;
and
III) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Choi, Lin and Lowell.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and the arguments
1 The examiner inadvertently did not refer to this reference
in the Prior Art section of the Answer even though it was relied
upon in rejecting claim 3 on appeal. See the Answer, pages 2-4.
2 The examiner inadvertently included canceled claim 4 in
this rejection. See the Answer, page 3. To correct this
inadvertent error on the part of the examiner, claim 4 has been
excluded.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007