Appeal No. 98-2805
Application 08/663,849
May 28, 1997) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed
March 10, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8, filed
November 26, 1997) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims,
to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellants 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 1, 2,
4, 5, 7 through 12 and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Hattori, we initially observe that
claims 4 and 14 respectively depend from claims 3 and 13,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007