Appeal 2007-0600
Application 09/943,535
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
being anticipated by Nishioka.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nishioka in view of Daher.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nishioka in view of Koyama.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Nakagiri in view of Cairns.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Misawa.
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 Jun. 15, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Mar. 27, 2006)
and Reply Brief (filed Aug. 11, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
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.
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not expressly argued or
expressly invoked consideration under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, in
the Brief or in the Reply Brief. Therefore, we give the “data analysis
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013