Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims are:
Wiser 6,385,596 B1 May 7, 2002
Lida 6,209,787 B1 Apr. 3, 2001
Chen 6,412,004 B1 Jun. 25, 2002
Jones 6,453,355 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Hazra 6,510,553 B1 Jan. 21, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claims 9, 33, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones.
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47, 48, 49 and 50
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in
view of Jones and further in view of Hazra
Claims 18, 21, 34 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones and further in view Wiser.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen in view of Jones and further in view of Iida.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 23, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Mar. 16, 2006)
and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 7, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013