Appeal No. 2005-1396
Application 09/739,990
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chou (‘123) in view of Netherlands (‘359) and
Taiwanese (‘687).
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding that rejection, we make reference to the supplemental
examiner's answer (originally mailed Dec. 5, 2003 and re-mailed
May 4, 2004) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and
to appellants’ brief (filed November 25, 2002), reply brief
(filed March 10, 2003) and supplemental reply brief (filed July
6, 2004) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claim 44,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination which
follows.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007