Appeal No. 1998-1452
Application 08/408,006
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Lynch 3,159,886 Dec. 8, 1964
Nozaki 4-163,226 June 8, 1992
Japanese Patent Document3
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
a) claims 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Nozaki; and 4
b) claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nozaki in view of Lynch.5
3An English language translation of this reference,
prepared on behalf of the Patent and Trademark Office, is
appended hereto.
4The examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
alternative to this rejection which was set forth in the final
rejection (see page 3 in the examiner’s answer, Paper No. 17).
5This particular rejection was entered for the first time
in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 17) in contravention of
the pertinent PTO practice in effect at the time. Given the
nature of the arguments advanced in the appellants’ main and
reply briefs (Paper Nos. 16 and 18), the examiner’s failure to
follow proper procedure in making the rejection has not put
the appellants at any disadvantage. Since the 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) rejection of claims 12 and 13 as being anticipated by
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007