Appeal No. 1998-2147
Application No. 08/247,356
Claims 28, 29 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).1
Claims 28, 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crivello.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 6).
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nguyen-Kim.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 9).
Claims 29, 36 and 37 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Elsaesser. (Examiner’s Answer, page 11).
Claim 28 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Crivello,
Nguyen-Kim, or Elsaesser in view of Uenishi ‘389 or Uenishi’ 582. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 14).
1 The final rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, appears to be in
error because claim 35 was canceled by Appellants in the amendment submitted June 25, 1997, paper
no. 26.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007