Appeal No. 1997-1181 Page 3
Application No. 08/000,735
Shooichi et al. 3285540 Dec. 16, 19912
(Japanese patent document)
The following rejection is before us for review.3
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the Japanese document.4
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the answer and supplemental
answer (Paper Nos. 19 and 23) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection and to the brief, reply
brief, supplemental reply brief and supplemental brief (Paper
Nos. 15, 21, 24 and 29) 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 reference, and to the
2 An English language translation of this reference, prepared by the
Patent and Trademark Office, is appended hereto.
3 The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 was overcome by the amendment of Paper No. 11 (see Paper No. 12).
4 The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) was a new ground of
rejection entered in the answer. The examiner has withdrawn all rejections of
claims 3-5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007