Appeal No. 2006-1333
Application No. 10/347,849
Claims 24 and 25 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Venkatesan. Claims 26-32 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Venkatesan in view of Sato.
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, the arguments in support of the rejections, and the evidence of anticipation and
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support
of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
1 The Appeal Brief was filed August 19, 2004. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed November 22, 2004, a Reply Brief was filed
January 28, 2005 which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as
indicated in the communication mailed March 9, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007