Appeal 2007-2983
Application 10/029,583
Hatakeyama US 6,010,831 Jan. 4, 2000
Kikuchi US 6,379,572 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 23, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Deckman. Claims 3,
21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kikuchi in view of Deckman and Hatakeyama. Claims 9, 14-20, 24-26,
28-46, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kikuchi in view of Deckman, Hatakeyama, and Jun. Claims 4 and 27
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikuchi
in view of Deckman, Hatakeyama, Jun, and Brandes.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief, and the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints of Appellants and the Examiner with
respect to the rejections maintained by the Examiner.1 We have considered
the rejected claims separately to the extent that the claims are separately
argued in the Brief in a manner consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)
(vii). Of course, “[a] statement which merely points out what a claim recites
will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim”
(id.). We affirm the stated rejections.
Rejection over Kikuchi and Deckman
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 23 together as a
group (Br. 6-8). Thus, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on
which we decide this appeal for this claim grouping.
1 Our references to the Brief and Reply Brief herein are to the Brief filed on
September 27, 2005 and the Reply Brief filed on March 20, 2007.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013