Appeal No. 2005-1229 Page 7
Application No. 09/887,334
The obviousness rejection
We have reviewed the patent to Nakayama applied in the obviousness rejection
of dependent claims 14, 15, 19, 21 and 22 but find nothing therein which makes up for
the deficiencies of Suda discussed above with respect to independent claim 13.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 14, 15, 19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suda in view of Nakayama is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007