Appeal No. 1999-1687 Page 3
Application No. 08/152,102
Mizushima et al. 50-749311 Jun. 19, 1975
(Mizushima)
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima in view of Scheib
and Havel.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejection, we make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 46, mailed August 14, 1998) for the examiner’s complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’
brief (Paper No. 42, filed August 12, 1997), supplemental
appeal brief (Paper No. 45, filed May 8, 1998), and reply
brief (Paper No. 47, filed October 14, 1998) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
1In determining the teachings of Mizushima, we will rely on the
translation provided by the USPTO. A copy of the translation is attached for
appellants' convenience.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007