Appeal No. 2006-3038
Application No. 09/750,288
4. Claims 9-13 and 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Morishita in view of Maxted and further in view of
Wilcox.
5. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Morishita in view of Maxted and further in view of Huang.
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 prior art rejections. 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 rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that claim 8
particularly points out and distinctly claims the invention in a manner that
complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We also conclude that the
disclosure of Morishita fully meets the invention as set forth in claims 2, 7, and
27-29. We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with respect to claim 8. We
are also of the view that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007