Appeal No. 95-0175
Application 07/894,147
Aguro et al. (Aguro) 5,150,424 Sep. 22, 1992
(filed Nov. 29, 1990)
Kaplan 5,280,275 Jan. 18, 1994
(filed Jan. 24, 1992)
Japanese Laid Open Application 63-316284 Dec. 23, 1988
(Yoshikawa)
Japanese Laid-Open Application 2-249086 Oct. 4, 1990
(Sugiyama)
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 10-19 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an unenabling disclosure.
In the final Office action (Paper No. 7), claims 1, 2, 4,
and 6-19 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Togawa, Sugiyama or Aguro, and Hernandez. In
the examiner’s answer, however, all references to Sugiyama were
dropped, and only claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 10-13 are said to be
rejected as being unpatentable over Togawa, Aguro and Hernandez.
In a supplemental answer (Paper No. 18), however, the examiner
clarified that claims 18 and 19 were rejected on the same ground
as well. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-13, and 18-19 stand
finally rejected over Togawa, Aguro and Hernandez.
In the final Office action (Paper No. 7), claim 3 was
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Togawa, Sugiyama, Hernandez and Sklarew. In the examiner’s
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007