Appeal 2007-2384
Application 10/943,424
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 21, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Bae.
Claims 2, 9, 22, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Bae as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-8,
21, and 23-28 above, and further in view of Kim.
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. 28, 2006) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Sep. 5,
2006) and Reply Brief (filed Jan 29, 2007) 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.
35 U.S.C. § 103
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) must be based on the following
factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013