Appeal No. 2006-1550
Application No. 10/044,401
Rejections At Issue
A. Claims 1, 3, 6 through 8 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as being anticipated by Yokoyama.
B. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the combination of Yokoyama and Lach. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yokoyama and the
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yokoyama and Tauchen. Claim 5
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination
of Yokoyama and Aimoto. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yokoyama and Hsieh.
Rather than reiterating the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, the opinion refers
to respective details in the Briefs1 and the Examiner’s Answer.2 Only those arguments
actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments, which
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been taken into
consideration. See 37 CFR 41.37(c)(1) (vii) (eff. Sept. 13, 2004).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the subject
matter on appeal, the Examiner’s rejections, the arguments in support of the rejections
and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief September 30, 2005. Appellant filed a Reply Brief on February 28, 2006.
2 The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer on January 05, 2006. The Examiner mailed an office
communication March 15, 2006, stating that the Reply Brief has been entered and considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007