Appeal No. 1998-1533 Page 3
Application No. 08/411,202
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tarter in view of Feldmann and further in
view of Kawase.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tarter in view of Feldmann and further in
view of Iwashita.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hummel in view of Feldmann.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hummel in view of Feldmann and further in
view of Iwashita.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 10, mailed October 8, 1996) and the answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed July 8, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007