Ex parte YAMANAKA - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 95-4115                                                                                       Page 3                        
                 Application No. 07/932,714                                                                                                             
                 Morrison et al.(Morrison)                             4,612,072                           Sep.  16, 1986                               
                 Okamoto                                               5,045,417                           Sep.  3, 1991                                
                                                                                         (filed Sep.3, 1989)                                            
                 JP-1236544 as admitted by appellant on pages 6 and 7 of the                                                                            
                 specification.                                                                                                                         



                          Claims 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of Morrison.                                                                                   
                          Claims 12-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over Okamoto in view of JP-1236544 as                                                                               
                 admitted by appellant on pages 6 and 7 of the specification.                                                2                          




                          Rather than reiterate all of the conflicting viewpoints                                                                       
                 advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the                                                                               
                 above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                                                                            
                 answer dated November 9, 1994 and the supplemental answer                                                                              
                 dated June 16, 1995, and to the appellant's brief and reply                                                                            

                          2This rejection was denoted a new ground of rejection at                                                                      
                 page 3 of the answer. A communication mailed August 1, 1996                                                                            
                 furnished the signature of a supervisory patent examiner                                                                               
                 approving the new ground in response to a Remand dated July                                                                            
                 29, 1996. We note that a reply brief responsive to the new                                                                             
                 ground of rejection filed May 8, 1995 was entered as advised                                                                           
                 in a supplemental answer dated June 16, 1995.                                                                                          







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007