Appeal No. 1997-2387
Application No. 08/082,373
ISSUES5
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12-15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bernoco in view of JP '161. Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Forrest. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of Sakuma. Claim 7 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest in view of the
Takahashi abstract.
We reverse all four rejections.
In reaching our decision in this appeal we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
18, mailed March 8, 1996) and to the supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed August 7, 1996) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections to the
appellants' brief (Paper No. 17, filed December 13, 1995) and to appellants' reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed May 8, 1996) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
5The final rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, was
withdrawn by the examiner in view of appellants' arguments (answer, p. 2). The withdrawal from
consideration on appeal and subsequent cancellation of claims 8, 11 and 16 renders moot the final
rejections of claims 8, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, and under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bernoco in view of JP '161 as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12-15 and 17-19, and
further in view of Chagnon.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007