Appeal Number: 2006-3073
Application Number: 10/033,151
Atsmon US 6,607,136 B1 Aug. 19, 2003
(May 12, 0200)
Yu et al. (Yu) US 6,684,087 B1 Jan. 27, 2004
(May 7, 1999)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 through 12, 14 through 21, 23, 25 and 26
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler and Yu.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu
and Beuk.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu
and Peppel.
Claims 8 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler,
Yu and Treyz.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Filler, Yu
and Atsmon.
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 Jan. 24, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (filed Oct. 25, 2005) and reply brief (filed Mar.
28, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013