Appeal No. 2005-2014 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/792,737
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Simon et al. (Simon) 5,933,753 Aug. 03, 1999
Nogami et al. (Nogami) 5,968,333 Oct. 19, 1999
Hong et al. (Hong) 6,008,117 Dec. 28, 1999
Gates et al. (Gates) 6,203,613 Mar. 20, 2001
Lim et al. (Lim) 6,284,589 Sep. 04, 2001
The Examiner entered the following rejections:
Claims 1, 7, 34, 36, 37, and 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Simon, Lim, Nogami and Hong; and claim 4 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Simon, Lim,
Nogami, Hong and Gates. (Answer, pp. 3-7).
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art,
including all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support
of their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the Examiner’s
rejections are well founded.
We initially note that Appellants assert that for purposes of appeal that the claims
should stand or fall together except for claim 36. (Brief, p. 3). We note that Appellants’
grouping of the claims is not exclusive to each stated rejection.1 Accordingly, we will
1 Claim 4 is not subject to the same rejection as claims 1, 7, 34, 36, 37, and 40-44.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007