Appeal No. 2006-1836
Application No. 10/087,556
The examiner relies on the following references:
Murakami 5,874,780 Feb. 23, 1999
Kanda et al. (Kanda) 6,153,938 Nov. 28, 2000
Lin 6,426,556 July 30, 2002
(filed Jan. 16, 2001)
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 11, 12, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (e) as anticipated
by Kanda.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Kanda in view of
Murakami.
Claims 10, and 121-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over
Kanda in view of Lin.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’ statement, at page 3 of the
supplemental brief, “[c]laims 1-6 and 9-22 stand or fall together.” Accordingly, we will focus on
independent claim 1.
WE AFFIRM.
In our view, the examiner has clearly set forth a prima facie case of anticipation of the
instant claimed subject matter by pointing to Figure 3 of Kanda. The drawing, together with its
1 Claim 12 stands rejected under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and §103.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007