Appeal No. 2006-3032 4
Application No. 09/969,040
The examiner relies on the following references:
Oyama et al. (Oyama) 5,099,329 Mar. 24, 1992
Smith et al. (Smith) 6,501,518 Dec. 31, 2002
(filed July 28, 1998)
The following rejection is on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Smith in
view of Oyama.
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
rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied
upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner’s answer. Only those arguments actually made by appellants
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007