Appeal No. 2006-0483
Application 09/860,272
Mercurio (Mercurio ‘795) 3,904,795 Sep. 9, 1975
Kuwajima et al. (Kuwajima) 4,518,724 May 21, 1985
Sekiya et al. (Sekiya) 4,613,633 Sep. 23, 1986
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 5,416,181 May 16, 1995
Kumacheva et al. (Kumacheva)1 US 2001/0043495 A1 Nov. 22, 2001
(published United States Patent Application)
Mercurio (Mercurio ‘086)2 1 462 086 Jan. 19, 1977
(Patent Specification, United Kingdom)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 19, 23 through 25 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, the examiner relying
on Kuwajima (answer, pages 4-5);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 14, 15 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Mercurio ‘795 or ‘086 (answer, pages 5-7);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 15, 18, 19 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mercurio ‘795 or ‘086 (answer, pages 7-8);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 15, 18, 19 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mercurio ‘795 or ‘086 and Kumacheva (answer, page 8);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 14, 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Nguyen
(answer, page 9);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 15, 18, 19 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Nguyen alone, or in view of Kumacheva (answer, page 10);
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 15, 27, 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Sekiya
(answer, pages 10-11); and
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 15, 18, 19 and 27 through 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Sekiya (answer, page 12).3
1 We note that Kumacheva issued as US 6,733,946 B2 on May 11, 2004.
2 Mercurio ‘795 and ‘086 are in the patent family based on United States Patent Application
352,836 filed April 19, 1973.
3 The statement of this ground of rejection in the answer and the final action mailed February
24, 2005 (page 6), includes claim 17 but not independent claim 16 on which claim 17 depends,
neither claim included in any other ground of rejection based on prior art. The examiner states in
the final action (page 7) and in the answer (page 12) that claims 16 and 17 would be allowable
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007