Appeal No. 2006-1228
Application No. 09/802,982
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 12, 15 and 17-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written description
requirement; claims 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention; claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto; claims 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto and
Echigoya; claims 12, 15 and 17-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda
in view of Enomoto and Whalen, Momose or Patry; claims 15 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto and Obara;
claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of
Enomoto and Suzuki; and claims 12 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Noda in view of Enomoto, Obara and Suzuki.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto, and claims 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Noda in view of Enomoto and
Echigoya, and reverse the other rejections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007