Appeal No. 97-2546
Application 08/399,722
December 23, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (filed November 13,
1996) 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
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5,
7, 9 through 12, 14, 25, 26 and 28 through 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Takayanagi, we note that the
relevant portion of this section of the statute indicates that
a person shall be entitled to a patent unless ---
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007