Appeal No. 96-1920
Application 08/218,136
Furukawa in view of Nishikawa.
6. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Takahashi ’997.
7. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Takahashi ’785.
8. Claims 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Takahashi ’785 in
view of Furukawa.
9. Claims 8-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Takahashi ’785 in
view of Furukawa, and further in view of Nishikawa.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007