Appeal No. 2006-2011
Application No. 09/996,720
2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Shimizu.
3. Claims 23-26 and 30-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Himoto.
4. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Bruce taken alone.
5. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Shimizu taken alone.
6. Claims 20-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Bruce taken alone.
7. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Shimizu or Bruce in view of Bueno.
8. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Himoto or Bruce in view of No.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants 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 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, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007