Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 4
Application No. 07/928,642
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kanai, Davies, and
Shioya.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Shibata in view of Kanai, Davies, and Shioya
as above, and further in view of Chen.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
as unpatentable over Chen . 2
We make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 28, filed April 28, 1994) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
2Although the final rejection mailed October 21, 1993
inadvertently failed to list 35 U.S.C. § 102 in addition to 35
U.S.C. § 103 in the statement of the rejection of claims 5 and
6 as being unpatentable over Chen, the Answer contains a
statement of rejection which includes both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
§ 103. Appellants did not request that the rejection be
denominated as a new ground of rejection. Rather, they argue
the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over Chen
based on both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007