Appeal No. 97-1440
Application 08/187,838
(European Patent Application)
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 9, 10, 15 through 17 and 19
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Ohno.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ohno in view of De Woskin.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed December 5, 1996) for the examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief
(Paper No. 16, filed November 21, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007