Appeal No. 1997-1060
Application No. 08/172,848
b) claims 7 -10, 16-27 , and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 1033 4
(a) as being unpatentable over Saito.
We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed August 22, 1996) and the Office Action referred to
therein for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejections, and appellant’s appeal brief and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed May 20, 1996 and Paper No. 15, filed
October 21, 1996, respectively) for appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
3In claim 7, line 6, after “one” there appears to be a
term missing from this line.
4In claim 27, line 4, “switching” should be changed to --
changing--.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007