Appeal No. 2005-1629
Application No. 10/001,256
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1382-83, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1464 (Fed. Cir.
2002).
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Sano et al. (Sano) 5,769,930 Jun. 23, 1998
Anton et al. (Anton) 5,912,280 Jun. 15, 1999
Bessho et al. (JP ‘525) 11-217525-A Aug. 10, 1999
(published Japanese Patent Application)1
Claims 1, 3 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over JP ‘525 or Anton, each in view of Sano
(Answer, pages 4-5). Based on the totality of the record,2
including due consideration of the Brief, Reply Brief,
Supplemental Reply Brief, the Answer, and the Supplemental
Answer, we affirm the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answers as well as those reasons set forth
below.
We rely on and cite from a machine-assisted translation of this document, made of1
record by the examiner as an attachment to the final Office action dated Jan. 29, 2004.
In the interests of judicial economy, we have combined the two rejections on appeal2
since each rejection includes the same claims and the same secondary reference (Sano).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007