Ex parte TEPPEI YOKOTA - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-4202                                                          
          Application 08/033,181                                                      

          Takahashi et al.              4,688,116           Aug. 18, 1987             
          (Takahashi '116)                                                            
          Takahashi et al.              RE 33,765           Dec. 10, 1991             
          (Takahashi '765)                                                            
          Sako                          5,325,347           Jun. 28, 1994             
                                                  (filed Sep. 19, 1991)               

                    Claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 9 and 10 stand rejected under           
          35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Takahashi '765.   Claims 1, 32                         
          through 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as                     
          unpatentable over Sako in view of Takahashi '116.                           
                    Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the               
          respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                         
                                       OPINION                                        
                    At the outset, we note that new grounds of rejection,             
          introduced in the answer, under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second             
          paragraphs, have been withdrawn by the examiner in the                      
          supplemental answer responsive to entry of the amendment                    
          submitted with the reply brief, such entry being mandated by the            
          grant of a petition filed by appellant on February 12, 1996.                
          Accordingly, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are not before us on            
          this appeal.                                                                
                    After careful consideration of the record before us,              
          including, inter alia, the applied references and the arguments             

          The examiner does not include claim 4 in this rejection.2                                                                      

                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007