Appeal No. 2006-3246
Application No. 09/956,849
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 Nov. 17, 2005) for the
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Sep. 1,
2005) and Reply Brief (filed Jan. 10, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
Claims 6192-6196, 6199, 6201-6252, 6312, 6432, 6492, and 6548 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore in view
of Yoshioka. Claims 6197 and 6198 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Moore in view of Yoshioka and further in view
of Jann. C1aim 6200 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moore in view of Yoshioka and further in view of
Kuriyama.
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.
While Appellants do not identify which specific claim numbers
correspond to each of the embodiments in the Summary of Claimed Subject
Matter in the brief, it appears that Appellants have set forth a description of
each of the independent claims on appeal as required by 37 CFRS 41.37.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013