Appeal No. 96-3054
Application 08/134,147
specification as originally filed. 3
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Koskowich.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Koskowich and
further in view of Ogawa.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 7 and 14 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of these claims but we
3The final rejection (page 4) states “if the new matter were withdrawn from the amended
claims 1-7 and 14 and specification, old rejections made in the first Office Action dated 06/20/94
would still be sustained.” However, that rejection has not been made and is not before us. Likewise, at
page 9 of the final rejection, it states “if new matter were withdrawn from the amended claims 19-25,
claim 19, ...., is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the same grounds for the rejection of
claim 15.” However, that rejection has not been made and is not before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007