Appeal No. 97-0445
Application 08/170,020
Hasegawa et al. al. (Hasegawa) 4,670,866 Jun. 2,
1987
Kobayashi et al. al. (Kobayashi) 5,033,038 Jul. 16,
1991
Amar 5,319,621 Jun. 7,
1994
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Hasegawa. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
various combinations of Hasegawa, Kobayashi and Amar.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
It is our view that claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 are
anticipated by Hasegawa, while claim 5 is obvious over
Hasegawa. On the other hand, claims 2, 3, 6 and 9 are not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007