Appeal No. 2000-0722
Application No. 08/646,399
subject matter which appellant regards as the invention. Claims 1, 10, 14, 15, 22-24, 26,
27, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Takeshima.
Claims 2-4, 6, 16, 20, 21, 25, 28, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshima in view of Koizumi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 23, mailed Nov. 19, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 22, filed Sep. 1, 1999) and reply brief
(Paper No. 24, filed Jan. 19, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The examiner maintains that “it is unclear what structure ‘a depth direction’ is referring
to.” (See answer at page 3.) Appellant argues that the depth direction is the direction in
which the expansible member 22 moves in the direction indicated by the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007