Ex parte HUAT - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1996-2956                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/152,192                                                                                                                                            

                     Tomita                                                           l-181551                                   July 19, 1989                                         
                     (Japanese Patent)                                                                                                                                                 


                                Claims 27 through 31, 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35                                                                                                
                     U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Appellant's admitted                                                                                                      
                     prior art, Swapp, Kodama, Fukui, Tomita, Wilkin, Takemoto,                                                                                                        
                     Yonemura, Nara, Noguchi and Pearson.                                                                                                                              
                                Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                                                                                                
                     unpatentable over the combination of Appellant's admitted                                                                                                         
                     prior art, Swapp, Kodama, Fukui, Tomita, Wilkin, Takemoto,                                                                                                        
                     Yonemura, Nara, Noguchi and Pearson, and further in view of                                                                                                       
                     Yabe and Matsunaga.                                                                                                                                               
                                Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the                                                                                               
                     Examiner, reference is made to the briefs  and the answer for                           1                                                                         
                     the respective details thereof.                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                  OPINION                                                                                              
                                We will not sustain the rejection of claims 27 through 34                                                                                              
                     under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                                                                                                            


                                1Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 23, 1995.                                                                                                     
                     Appellant filed a reply brief on October 23, 1995.  The                                                                                                           
                     Examiner mailed a communication on February 6, 1996 stating                                                                                                       
                     that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no                                                                                                       
                     further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.                                                                                                             
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007