Appeal No. 96-3902
Application 08/442,742
102 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
2 3
appellants, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereto.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-5, and 7-20 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and we
will reverse this rejection of claims 1-5, and 7-20. We disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1-7 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph and we will
reverse this rejection of claims 1-7. We disagree with the Examiner that claims 1-7 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we will reverse this rejection of claims 1-7.
We disagree with the Examiner that claims 1-4 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102 and we will reverse this rejection of claims 1-4.
FIRST PARAGRAPH
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection is a question of breadth not
2Appellants filed an appeal brief filed April 1, 1996, Paper No. 43. We will refer to this appeal
brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a response after final on January 16, 1996, but did not amend the
claims.
3 The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's Answer mailed, May 24, 1996, Paper
No. 44. We will refer to this Examiner's answer as simply the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007