Appeal No. 2005-0999
Application No. 09/939,356
Appealed claims 1, 3-5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Takahashi. Claims 1, 3-5 and 8
also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Pavlovic. In addition, claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pavlovic in view of
Rosenbaum, whereas claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being anticipated by Takahashi or Pavlovic in view of
Pei.2
Appellants submit at page 6 of the brief that “claims 1-8
will stand or fall together”, whereas claims 9 and 10 are
separately patentable. Accordingly, claims 2-8 stand or fall
together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that the examiner’s § 102 rejections of claims 1, 3-5 and 8 are
well founded, as is the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6
and 7. We will not, however, sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 9 and 10.
We consider first the examiner’s § 102 rejections. There is
no dispute that both Takahashi and Pavlovic describe a composite
2 The examiner has withdrawn the rejections over Bollesen,
Villaume and Katsui (see page 5 of answer, first paragraph).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007