Appeal No. 2006-0168 Παγε 2
Application No. 10/459,052
Testardi 5,067,778 Nov. 26, 1991
Schenk et al. (Schenk) 5,090,518 Feb. 25, 1992
Suzuki 5,957,246 Sep. 28, 1999
Akuta JP 03061728 Mar. 18, 1991
The rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 15 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Schenk in view of Suzuki.
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Schenk and Suzuki further in view of Akuta.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Schenk, Suzuki and further in view of Testardi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 30, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed April 29, 2005) and reply brief (filed August 26, 2005)
for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007