Appeal No. 2006-1697
Application No. 10/400,998
2. Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Seiki and further in view of
Mortensen.
3. Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Seiki and further in view of
Lott.
4. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ko in view of Seiki, Lott, and further in view of Mortensen.
5. Claims 8, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ko in view of Seiki and further in view of Pritchett.
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 in
the briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence
relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would have suggested to one
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007