Appeal No. 2005-0293
Application No. 09/727,139
Then, Jeng, and Ramachandran are relied upon as teaching or
suggesting the features recited in dependent claims 4, 5, and
17. (Answer at 4-6.) These additional references, however,
have not been shown to remedy the basic deficiency in the
examiner’s combination of Xiang and Nakajima as to appealed
claim 1.
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: appealed claims 1 through 3, 9, 10,
and 18 as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima; appealed
claim 4 as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima and
further in view of Then; appealed claims 5 through 13, 16, and
19 through 22 as unpatentable over Xiang in view of Nakajima and
further in view of Jeng; and appealed claim 17 as unpatentable
over Xiang in view of Nakajima and further in view of
Ramachandran.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007