Appeal No. 2005-2247
Application No. 09/976,641
Claims 11, 12 and 16-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ovshinsky in view of Chang and Slotboom.1
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Ovshinsky in view of Chang and Slotboom further in view of Holmberg.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 23, 2004) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the brief (filed May 03, 2004) and reply brief (filed August 03, 2004) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1 Here, we note that the rejection has been modified from that set forth in the final rejection to add
the teachings of Slotboom. Since appellants have not disputed this new grounds of rejection, we will
review the rejection as set forth in the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007