Appeal No. 97-2035
Application 08/161,234
Opinion
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 9-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kume or Shiroishi,
in view of Abo.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 13 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume or
Shiroishi in view of Abo.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-13
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tsuchiya in view of Abo.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kume, Shiroishi, or
Tsuchiya in view of Abo and further in view of Coughlin.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kume or Shiroishi, in
view of Abo and further in view of Kubo.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of
Abo and further in view of Kubo.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007