Appeal No. 96-0616
Application 08/036,249
(1) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kikuchi;
(2) Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kuwahara;4
(3) Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hori in view of Kuwahara; and
(4) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Hori in view of Kuwahara, further in
view of Kitagawa.5
In the final rejection, claims 2, 3 and 10 were also
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kikuchi. This ground of rejection, however, was withdrawn in
the examiner's answer (page 4).
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 (Paper
No. 19, mailed April 17, 1995), first supplemental answer
4In determining the teachings of Kuwahara and Kitagawa, we will rely on
the translations provided by the PTO. A copy of the translations are attached
for the appellant's convenience.
5Rejections (2)-(4) are new grounds of rejection made in the examiner's
answer (pages 4-6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007