Appeal No. 2005-2350
Application No. 10/056,352
The following references are relied on by the examiner.
Mizobuchi et al. (Mizobuchi) 6,133,342 Oct. 17, 2000
(filed: Jan. 21, 1999)
Moh et al. (Moh) 6,165,594 Dec. 26, 2000
(filed: Jan. 15, 1998)
Wijnschenk et al. (Wijnschenk) 6,270,728 B1 Aug. 7, 2001
(Section 102(e) date: Jan. 29, 1999)
Claims 22 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness as to claims 22 through 32, the
examiner relies upon Wijnschenk in view of Moh, with the addition
of Mizobuchi as to claims 33 through 36.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
Generally for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As indicated at the bottom of page 2 of the
principal brief on appeal, the appellants have indicated that
claims 22 through 36 fall together. Arguments are presented in
the brief only as to independent claim 22 with the patentability
of independent claim 29 urged at page 5 to be dependent upon the
arguments presented as to independent claim 22.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007