Appeal No. 96-4001
Application 08/246,805
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Blum 4,888,654 Dec. 19, 1989
Bradshaw et al. (Bradshaw) 5,272,572 Dec. 21, 1993
(Effectively filed Feb. 26, 1991)
Seko et al. (Seko) 60-50687 Mar. 20, 1985
(Japanese Kokai)2
Claims 1, 5, 6, 18, 20, 21, 26-28, 42, and 43 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Seko in view of Bradshaw and Blum. Rather than reiterate the arguments of
Appellant and the Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details3
thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced by the
Examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection.
We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s
arguments set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
2A copy of the translation provided by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, February 1999,
is included and relied upon for this decision.
3The Appeal Brief was filed May 1, 1996. In response to the Examiner's Answer dated June
20, 1996, a Reply Brief was filed August 23, 1996 which was acknowledged and entered by the
Examiner without further comment on April 4, 1997.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007