Appeal No. 2001-1550
Application 09/105,830
Kashihara et al. (Kashihara) 5,382,817 Jan. 17, 1995
Summerfelt et al. (Summerfelt) 5,609,927 Mar. 11, 1997
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Summerfelt or in the alternative claims 1 and 8
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Summerfelt.
Claims 1 through 14, 16 through 18 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Summerfelt in
view of Meikle and Kashihara.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and arguments of the Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reason stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 14, 16
through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We first will address the rejection of claims 1 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007