Appeal No. 2005-1046
Application No. 09/821,027
We affirmed the rejections of claims 13-15, 17, 36, 38 and 40
because the appellants’ arguments regarding those claims were not
persuasive (decision, pages 10-11 and 13-14). However, as pointed
out by the appellants (request, page 1), those claims depend from
rejected claims. The examiner does not rely upon the additional
references (Chen or van Gogh) applied to those dependent claims for
any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Chu, Sato and
Tomioka as to the claims from which they depend (answer, pages 10-
16).
Consequently, we modify our decision as follows: The
rejections of claims 11 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Chu,
and claims 11 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Sato in view of
Tomioka or Chu, are affirmed. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 12, 32-35, 37 and 39 over 1) Chu, and 2) Sato in view of
Tomioka or Chu, claims 13-16, 19-25, 28-30, 36, 38 and 40 over
1) Chu in view of Chen, and 2) Sato in view of Tomioka or Chu,
further in view of Chen, and claims 17 and 18 over 1) Chu in view
of van Gogh and 2) Sato in view of Tomioka or Chu, further in view
of van Gogh, are reversed. Thus, our decision remains affirmed-in-
part.
claims 34, 32 and 33. Claims 35, 37 and 39 stand or fall with
the claims from which they depend (brief, page 7).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007