Appeal No. 96-0005
Application 07/722,599
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced
by the appellants in the brief and reply brief and by the
examiner in the answer and supplemental answer. As a consequence
of this review, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections of (1)
claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Metcalf, (2) claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the Japanese publication, (3) claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf and
Yamaoka and (4) claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf, Babb and the
Japanese publication. We will not, however, sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Metcalf or claims 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf. Additionally, pursuant
to our authority under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
will enter new rejections of claims 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 36, 37, 62
and 63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Considering first the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of
claims 1 and 15 as being anticipated by Metcalf and claim 1 as
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007