Appeal No. 96-1628
Application No. 08/167,617
Kawaoka et al. (Kawaoka) 5,075,775 Dec.
24, 1991
Asao JP 3-070274 Mar. 26,
1991
Claims 1, 11, 21, 22, 24, and 31 through 36 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Asao. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Asao in view of Kawaoka .3
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 29,
mailed June 13, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 28, filed March 10, 1995) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 31,
filed August 02, 1995) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
issued August 16, 1994, Kerbel, PN 4,158,859, issued June 19, 1979, Oba, JP
60-136480, published July 19, 1985, and Todaka, JP 63-123278, published May
27, 1988, are all cited in the prior art section of the Examiner's Answer but
were not applied in any rejections.
3As the claims stand or fall together (Brief, page 6), only the alleged
anticipation of claim 1 by Asao will be considered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007