Appeal 2007-2501
Application 10/026,917
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Morita US 5,815,366 Sept. 29, 1998
4 Brown US 5,948,986 Sept. 7, 1999
5 Hwang US 6,238,160 May 29, 2001
6 Wytman US 6,354,791 Mar. 12, 2002
7 O’Mara US 6,444,033 Sept. 3, 2002
8
9 Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
10 being anticipated by Hwang (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 32).
11 Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
12 unpatentable over Hwang in view of O’Mara (Final Rejection 4 and Answer
13 4).
14 Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
15 unpatentable over Hwang in view of Wytman (Final Rejection 4 and Answer
16 4).
17 Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
18 unpatentable over Hwang in view of Morita (Final Rejection 5 and Answer
19 5).
20 Claims 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
21 unpatentable over Hwang in view of Brown (Final Rejection 6 and Answer
22 6).
23
24
2 In the Answer, we assume claim 11 was omitted in error, since claim 15
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013