Ex parte UMEZAWA et al. - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 95-4588                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/127,123                                                                                                                 



                                   Claims 3 through 5, 8 through 10, 12 through 14 and                                                                  
                 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                                                                          
                 over Bousquet in view of Smith and Rogers.3                                                                                            


                                   Rather than reiterate the examiner's explanation of                                                                  
                 the above-noted rejection and the conflicting viewpoints                                                                               
                 advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding that rejec-                                                                          
                 tion, we make                                                                                                                          





                 reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 43, mailed May                                                                           
                 10, 1995) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the                                                                               
                 rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 42, filed                                                                               
                 February 3, 1995) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.                                                                              


                 OPINION                                                                                                                                

                          3While the statement of the rejection on page 3 of the                                                                        
                 examiner's answer (Paper No. 43) includes claims 6 and 7, it                                                                           
                 is clear from the record of this application that these claims                                                                         
                 were canceled in the amendment filed April 28, 1994 (Paper No.                                                                         
                 36).                                                                                                                                   
                                                                           4                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007