Appeal No. 1997-4125 Page 5
Application No. 08/261,523
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Read in view of Cisneros further in view of
Murakami. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants
or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and
answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellants and examiner. After
considering the totality of the record, we are persuaded that
the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3. Accordingly, we
reverse.
At the outset we note that the examiner once rejected
claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. He observed, “The
feature ‘simultaneously’ claim 1, line 15, claims 2, line 24
and claim 3, line 25 [sic] was not disclosed in the originally
filed specification ....” (First Supplemental Examiner’s
Answer at 3.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007