Appeal No. 1997-1412 Page 5
Application 08/139,888
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the
arguments of the appellants and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are not persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 as
anticipated by Babel or in rejecting claims 6 and 23 as
obvious over Hisayoshi in view of Babel. We are persuaded,
however, that the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Hisayoshi. Accordingly, we affirm. Our
opinion addresses the grouping of claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 23;
the anticipation of claims 1, 6, 11, and 12 by Babel; the
anticipation of claim 1 by Hisayoshi; and the obviousness of
claims 6 and 23 over Hisayoshi-Babel.
Grouping of Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 23
37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7), as amended at 60 Fed. Reg. 14518
(Mar. 17, 1995), was controlling when the appeal brief was
filed. Section 1.192(c)(7) stated as follows.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007