Appeal 2007-1271
Application 10/005,583
dependent claims 10 and 14 as being unpatentable over Kuwata in view of
Somashekar.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation
On the record before us, we find Appellant has not shown the
Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for each of
claims 1, 6, 9, 13, and 21-23. However, we find that Appellant has shown
the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for each of
claims 2, 3, 11, and 15.
Obviousness
On the record before us, we conclude that Appellant has not shown
the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for each
of claims 7, 8, 12, and 16. However, we conclude that Appellant has shown
the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for each
of claims 4, 5, 10, 14, 17-20, and 24.
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we have
sua sponte set forth new grounds of rejection for independent claim 17.
Independent claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
James et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,742,161, issued May 25, 2004, filed Mar. 7, 2000).
We find independent claim 17 broadly but reasonably reads on James,
as follows:
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013