Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 4
Application No. 08/093,664
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Sadao in view of Mizutani, Aibe and Masuda.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 rejections, we
make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 36, mailed May
5, 1995) and the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 42,
mailed May 16, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper
No. 34, filed March 20, 1995), reply brief (Paper No. 37, filed
July 5, 1995) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 43, filed
July 16, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007