Appeal No. 96-3992
Application 08/356,618
Fromm et al. (Fromm) 5,200,786 Apr. 06, 1993
Kato et al. (Kato) 5,232,499 Aug. 03, 1993
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Kato. Claims 1 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fromm in
view of Kato.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, reference is made to the
Brief and Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
Examiner, the arguments in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation and obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant's arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer.
We note that, despite nominally indicating that all claims stand or fall together in a single group
(Brief, page 5), Appellant has provided separate arguments for each of the independent claims 1 and 5.
Since the Examiner also has addressed each of independent claims 1 and 5 individually, we will
consider these claims separately to the extent that separate arguments are of record in this appeal.
Further, since Appellant has made no separate arguments with respect to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007