Appeal No. 2006-1618
Application No. 10/046,797
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 16, 18, 25-27, 29, and 33-36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki.
2. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki and further in view of Ikezawa.
3. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 13, 14, 17, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki and further in view of
Catros.
4. Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim in view of Suzuki and further in view of Kim ('337).
5. Claims 20-23, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Catros in view of Makram-Ebeid.
6. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Catros in view of Makram-Ebeid and further in view of Luo.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant's arguments set forth
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007