Ex Parte ROTH et al - Page 6




                  Appeal No. 1997-3036                                                                                                                    
                  Application No. 08/268,094                                                                                                              


                                                                    The References                                                                        
                           The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed                                       
                  claims are:                                                                                                                             
                  Fekete et al. (Fekete)                                3,373,075                                    Mar. 12, 1968                        
                  Takiyama et al. (Takiyama)                            3,676,524                                    Jul.   11, 1972                      
                  Green                                                 4,074,008                                    Feb.  14, 1978                       
                  Kajiwara et al. (Kajiwara)                            5,218,061                                    Jun.    8, 1993                      


                                                                    The Rejections                                                                        
                           Claims 2-4, 7 and 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                                          
                  over Fekete or Takiyama in view of Green or Kajiwara.                                                                                   
                           Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                                              
                  appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19,                                         
                  mailed January 9, 1997) and the supplemental answer (Paper No. 21, mailed June 4, 1997) for                                             
                  the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16,                                         
                  filed August 13, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed March 5, 1997) for the appellants'                                          
                  arguments thereagainst.                                                                                                                 


                                                                        Opinion                                                                           
                           We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the                                               
                  examiner and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well founded.                                             

                                                                            6                                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007