Appeal No. 2005-2584
Application No. 09/897,331
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Timmermans et al. (Timmermans) 5,930,210 July 27, 1999
Maeda et al (Maeda) 6,069,870 May 30, 2000
Rejections at Issue
Claims 4 through 6, and 14 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Maeda. Claims 1 through 3, and 7 through 13 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timmermans in view of Maeda. The
examiner’s rejections are set forth on pages 3 through 11 of the answer.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the briefs, along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer. With full consideration being
given to the subject matter on appeal, the examiner’s rejection and the arguments of
appellants and examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 16.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007