Appeal No. 95-4187
Application 07/835,374
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 3 through 6 and 8, 11,
14 and 22 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Tsuruta.
However, we do not agree with the Examiner that claims 7,
15 through 17 and 23 through 25 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on April 25, 1995. We
will refer to this appeal brief as simply the brief.
Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on September 11, 1995.
We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply brief.
The Examiner stated in the Examiner’s letter mailed October
23, 1995 that the reply brief has been noted and the
Examiner's position is unchanged. Therefore, the reply brief
has been entered and considered by the Examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007