Appeal No. 97-2546
Application 08/399,722
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9 through 12, 14, 25, 26 and 28 through
35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takayanagi.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takayanagi in view of Oikawa.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takayanagi in view of Ono.3
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 16, mailed
3The examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5, 7 through 14 and 25 through 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made as a new ground of rejection on page 5 of the
examiner’s answer, has now been withdrawn by the examiner in light of the amendment
filed by appellant on February 7, 1997 (See the examiner’s letter mailed April 30,
1997). With the withdrawal of this rejection, we note that there is currently no
pending rejection of dependent claim 27 on appeal. However, since this belatedly added
claim includes the same limitations as claim 8 on appeal (which was rejected) and
depends from the broader independent claim 35, we consider that it was merely an
oversight on the examiner’s part that this claim was not also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on Takayanagi in view of Oikawa, as was claim 8.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007