Appeal No. 1997-3303 Page 3
Application No. 08/171,126
Sakata et al, (Sakata) 5,233,187 Aug. 3, 1993
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Sakata in view of Okai.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata in view of
Okai and further in view of Blonder.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata in view of
Okai and further in view of Angelopoulos.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata in view of
Okai and further in view of Tokuda.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed July 3, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 10, filed December 14, 1995) and revised brief (Paper No.12, filed February 12,
1996) for the appellants arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007