Appeal No. 2006-0450 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/044,141
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lee 6,157,074 Dec. 5, 2000
Chun-Jen et al. 6,337,510 Jan. 8, 2002
Takahashi JP 05-206219 Aug. 13, 1993
(Japanese Reference)
Claims 1-6 and 11-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Chun-Jen.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chun-Jen in view of Takahashi.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chun-Jen in view of Takahashi and further
in view of Lee.
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 August 24,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed January 27, 2005) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007