Appeal No. 95-4250 Page 5
Application No. 08/086,395
invention. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-24
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yoneyama in view of Legrow and Shioya. The above-noted
rejections represent the only issues before us for review.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer for the
examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Having considered the entire record of this application,
including the arguments advanced by both the examiner and
appellant in support of their respective positions, we agree
with appellant that the claimed subject matter is not only
reasonably definite in scope, but also would not have been
obvious over the applied references as combined by the
examiner. Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the
examiner's rejections for reasons as follows.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007