Appeal No. 2005-0713
Application No. 10/153,719 Page 4
REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gesche.
(2) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gesche in view of Singh.
(3) Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakano in view of Nguyen.
(4) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakano and Nguyen in view of Singh.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by the appellant and the examiner in the brief and the
answer in support of their respective positions. This review has
led us to conclude that the examiner’s rejections (1) and (2) are
well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections
(1) and (2) for the reasons set forth in the answer and below,
however we reverse the examiner’s rejections (3) and (4).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007