Appeal No. 2006-0933
Application No. 09/740,400
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Prafullchandra 5,734,718 Mar. 31, 1998
Redpath 5,854,629 Dec. 29, 1998
He 5,944,824 Aug. 31, 1999
Claims 1-14, 20-33, and 39-52 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by He. Claims 15-19, 34-
38, and 53-57 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As
evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers He in view of Redpath
with respect to claims 15, 34, and 53, and He in view of
Prafullchandra with respect to claims 16-19, 35-38, and 54-57.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for their
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
1 The Appeal Brief was filed May 24, 2005. In response to the Examiner’s
Answer mailed July 13, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed September 13, 2005 which
was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication
mailed October 25, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007