Appeal No. 2006-2850
Application No. 10/812,027
and Avitan. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 7 and 8 of the
Answer. Claims 23 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Kamiya in view of Kodama and Ito. The Examiner’s
rejection is set forth on page 9 of the Answer. Claims 24 through 28, 39, 41
and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over
Kamiya in view of Kodama, Ito and Avitan. The Examiner’s rejection is set
forth on pages 10 and 11 of the Answer. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Kamiya in view of Kodama, Ito,
Avitan and Hollenberg. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 11 of
the Answer. Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Briefs, the
Answer and the Office action mailed January 26, 2005, for the respective
details thereof.
Opinion
We have considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner in support of the rejections. We have likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set
forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal,
the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
and for the reasons stated infra we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3, 5 through 17, 23, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33 through 38 and 40
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013