Appeal No. 1999-2025
Application No. 08/394,212
54, 56, 72 through 76, and 82 through 87 stand rejected 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Tsuji. Claims 26, 28, 55, 57
through 71, and 77 through 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji in view of Janeway.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 1
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
With respect to claims 1 through 7, 9 through 17, 19, 20,
1A reply brief was filed as paper no. 68 on September 28, 1998.
However, the examiner denied entry of the brief. See paper no. 69. This
appears to us as counter to MPEP 1208.03 which the examiner recites as the
authority for the non-entry of the reply brief. However, this is a
petitionable matter and, since appellant did not petition this, we assume that
the reply brief is not in the record. We add that the entry of the reply
brief is not critical to our decision.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007