Appeal No. 1996-3709
Application 07/980,221
Claim 11
Claim 11 is rejected as being obvious over Tabuchi in
view of Ohsawa, Tsukakoshi and Kando, and further in view of
Lawson. We note that claim 11 depends on claim 5 and hence
contains at least the limitations of claim 5 as discussed.
The additional reference to Lawson does not cure the
deficiencies of the combination of Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa,
Tsukakoshi and Kando to
reject claim 5 above. Consequently, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 11 over Tabuchi in view of Ohsawa,
Tsukakoshi, Kando and Lawson.
Claim 29
Claim 29 is rejected over Tsukakoshi in view of Kando.
The Examiner contends [answer, page 18] that “[w]hether the
exposing device is slidably mounted in the upper body ... does
not have any affect [Sic] on the method steps being claimed
... .” Appellant argues [brief, pages 32 to 35] that the
claimed steps require, for their operation, the various
apparatus components to be positioned in the manner recited in
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007