Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
able over Kato and Ono. On page 6 of the Examiner's answer,
the Examiner sets forth a new ground of rejection in which
claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kato and Doerner.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and answers for 2 3
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 21 is properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and that claims 22, 23 and 26 are prop-
erly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on February 24, 1995.
Appellants filed a reply brief on July 10, 1995. On August 7,
1995, the Examiner mailed a communication stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3The Examiner filed an Examiner's answer on May 26, 1995.
The Examiner filed a supplemental Examiner's answer on
November 17, 1998.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007