Appeal No. 2005-1672
Application No. 09/833,866
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner in
support the Section 102 and 103 rejections before us are:
Roth 5,871,795 Feb. 16, 1999
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 64-39965 Feb. 10, 1989
(Published Japanese Kokai Patent Application)
THE REJECTIONS
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows2:
1) Claims 14 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated
by, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over, the disclosure of Roth; and
2) Claims 1, 3 through 13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Roth and
Nakayama.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the arguments advanced by both the
examiner and the appellant in support of their respective
positions. This review has led us to conclude that the
examiner’s Sections 102(a) and 103(a) rejections are well
2 See the Brief, page 3 and the Answer, pages 3-4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007