Appeal No. 2005-0840
Application No. 09/847,447
(Filed Feb. 16, 1999)
THE REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Li;
(2) Claims 1 through 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by the disclosure of Seraphim;
(3) Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosure of Seraphim and Minemoto; and
(4) Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosure of Seraphim and Matthies.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by the
examiner and the appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s rejections are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm
the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons set forth
in the Answer and below.
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s determination
that the applied prior art references teach and/or would have
suggested each and every element recited in the claims on appeal,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007