Appeal No. 2006-3106
Application 10/209,746
REJECTIONS
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's answer (mailed May 9, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ brief (filed Apr. 18, 2006)
and reply brief (filed Jun. 29, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-16 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by D'Anna. Claim 3 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over D'Anna in view of Oguri.
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over D'Anna in view of Herbert.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007