Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nakamura.
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bertolini.
Claims 5 and 7 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Bertolini in view of Nakamura.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the appellant’s Brief (Paper No.
21), for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Rejection Of Claims 4, 5 and 7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
This rejection is not sustained.
From a review of the appellant’s specification, as well
as from the understanding of the technology that we have
obtained from the further explanations provided in the Brief
and from the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007