Ex parte KOBAYASHI et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 96-0005                                                          
          Application 07/722,599                                                      


                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention as                
          described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior              
          art applied by the examiner and the respective positions advanced           
          by the appellants in the brief and reply brief and by the                   
          examiner in the answer and supplemental answer.  As a consequence           
          of this review, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections of (1)            
          claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by            
          Metcalf, (2) claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being                      
          anticipated by the Japanese publication, (3) claim 3 under                  
          35 U.S.C.  103 based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf and            
          Yamaoka and (4) claims 19, 20, 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C.  103              
          based on the combined disclosures of Metcalf, Babb and the                  
          Japanese publication.  We will not, however, sustain the                    
          examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as                
          being anticipated by Metcalf or claims 62 and 63 under 35 U.S.C.            
           103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf.  Additionally, pursuant           
          to our authority under the provisions of 37 CFR  1.196(b), we              
          will enter new rejections of claims 3, 15, 16, 19, 20, 36, 37, 62           
          and 63 under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                               
               Considering first the rejections under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) of           
          claims 1 and 15 as being anticipated by Metcalf and claim 1 as              


                                         -5-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007