Appeal No. 1997-0274
Application No. 08/266,912
Ito 5,029,282 Jul. 02, 1991
Tatsumi 5,297,179 Mar. 22, 1994
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in
view of Tatsumi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Examiner's
answer (Paper No. 10, mailed Jul. 25, 1996) for the Examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 9, filed Jun. 7, 1996) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that each of the prior art references fails to disclose the invention
as claimed. (See brief at page 9.) While we agree with appellants that neither reference
individually teaches nor suggests the invention as set forth in claim 1, the Examiner has set
forth the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007