Appeal No. 1997-3237
Application 08/266,081
(filed Dec. 2, 1992)
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112
as being indefinite. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Kanzaki. Claim 6 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
Takada. 1
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
2 3
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 14 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. In addition, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 6 as anticipated under
35 U.S.C.
1 The rejection of claims 1 and 6 over Kanzaki and Takada
are new grounds of rejection included for the first time in
the Examiner’s answer mailed August 16, 1996.
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on May 20, 1996.
Appellants also filed a reply brief on October 17, 1996 which
was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner with further
comments in a supplemental answer.
3 The Examiner mailed a supplemental answer on February 7,
1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007