Appeal No. 1997-2066
Application 08/537,408
The rejections, as stated by the Examiner, are:2
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a lack of enabling disclosure.
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gilhousen.
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being clearly anticipated by Kojima.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gilhousen in view of what was well known in
the art as exemplified by Gilhousen.
The statements of the rejection have some technical2
inaccuracies. For example, the Examiner states that
"[c]laim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gilhousen and Labedz as applied to claims 1-
3 and 8 above, and further in view of Yamauchi . . ." (EA8).
Since claim 4 depends directly from claim 1, the statement
about "as applied to claims 1-3 and 8 above" should just be
"as applied to claim 1 above." Also, since claim 1 was
rejected only over Gilhousen, and since the Examiner only
applies Yamauchi for the limitations of claim 4, Labedz should
not be mentioned in the statement of the rejection because it
is not in the chain of dependencies of claim 4. Similar
problems exist with respect to the rejections of claims 6-10.
For example, the rejection of claims 6 and 7 should be over
Gilhousen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1, further in
view of Harrison. Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, we state
the rejections as found in the Examiner's Answer.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007