Appeal No. 2005-1975 Page 3
Application No. 09/819,292
(filed Nov. 19, 1998)
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking enablement.
Claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haneda in view of
Kumar.
Claims 1, 4-7, 18, 19, 25, 30-32 and 35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gouko in view of
Kumar.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed October 5,
2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (revised brief, filed April 9, 2004)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007