Appeal No. 1997-2983 Page 5
Application No. 08/482,792
in view of Tanaka. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over AAPA in view of Levy, Delagi, and
Tanaka further in view of Maejima. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection advanced by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the totality
of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-12, and 14. We are also persuaded
that he did not err in rejecting claim 13. Accordingly, we
affirm-in-part.
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007