Ex parte LAW et al. - Page 4




              Appeal No. 1996-1362                                                                                     
              Application 08/234,074                                                                                   


              28, 2000, the examiner issued a Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Suppl. Answer) in                        
              which he withdrew the reliance on the Okuno reference (Page 2), but maintained the                       
              rejection of the claims over the combination considering Matsumura as the primary                        
              reference. (Id.)  Appellants filed a response, entitled Appellants' Response to the                      
              Examiner's Supplemental Answer (App. Response),on May 30, 2000 (Paper No. 28) in                         
              which they responded to the examiner’s further explanation of the rejection and the reliance             
              on the translation of the Japanese Kokai to Matsumura.  Appellants did not dispute the                   
              procedural handling of the prosecution or consideration of this new document as a basis                  
              for the rejection of the claims.  Appellants responded to the examiner's new arguments in                
              support of the rejection and additionally referred back to those arguments presented in the              
              Appeal Brief (App. Response, page 2).  It is in light of these filings by both the examiner              
              and appellants and the translation of the Japanese Kokai to Matsumura that we again                      
              consider the issues raised by this appeal.                                                               
                                        The rejection under 35 U.S.C.  103                                            
                     In rejecting claims 1-3, 6-11, 17-27, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C.  103, the examiner               
              has relied on the disclosure of Matsumura in view of Akiyama further in view of Jugle,                   
              Tomono, Creatura, and Ong all considered with Bonetzkaya and Ketcham.  We refer to                       
              pages 5-7 of the Board Decision of March 24, 2000 for the discussion of the examiner's                   
              reliance on the cited references as well as appellants' response.  In reaching our decision              


                                                          4                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007