Appeal No. 2005-0998
Application No. 10/054,605
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Zhao et al. (Zhao) 5,674,787 Oct. 7, 1997
Dubin et al. (Dubin) 5,695,810 Dec. 9, 1997
Hong et al. (Hong) 6,077,774 Jun. 20, 2000
Lee et al. (Lee) 6,180,523 Jan. 30, 2001
Maydan et al. (Maydan) 6,372,633 Apr. 16, 2002
All of the appealed claims stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The examiner has chosen to present the
case for obviousness in terms of five separate rejections. With
respect to each rejection, the claims, and the references applied
against those claims, are grouped as follows:
1. Claims 1-4 and 18-21 (Dubin in view of Hong).
2. Claims 1, 9-10, 18, and 26-27 (Maydan in view of Hong).
3. Claims 1-2 and 18-19 (Lee in view of Hong).
4. Claims 5, 7, 22 24, and 37-38 (Dubin in view of Hong
and Zhao).
5. Claims 8, 25 and 35-36 (Lee in view of Hong and Zhao).
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of
the opposing positions taken by the appellants and by the
examiner. Having done so, we conclude that each combination of
references relied upon by the examiner supports a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the rejected claims.
Accordingly, we shall affirm all of the rejections at issue for
the following reasons:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007