Appeal No. 96-3040
Application 08/135,650
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Cho et al. (Cho) 5,103,158 Apr. 7, 1992
Claims 1-8, 30, 31 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by the disclosure of Cho.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the examiner, we make reference
to the brief and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner and the evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support
for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s
answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the disclosure of Cho
does fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1, 2, 4-8, 30, 31 and 36. We reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claim 3. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007