Ex parte MIYAZAWA et al. - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 1997-3279                                                                                     Page 4                        
                 Application No. 08/240,702                                                                                                             


                          an electric current passed to the magnetic field                                                                              
                          coil.                                                                                                                         


                          The references relied on in rejecting the claims follow:                                                                      
                          Doemen                     4,030,005                                    June 14, 1977                                         
                          Fujitani et al.                     4,891,567                           Jan.  2, 1990                                         
                          (Fujitani)                                                                                                                    
                          Suzuki     1               1-274655                                     Nov.  2, 1989                                         
                          (Published Japanese Patent Application).                                                                                      
                 Claims 21 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as                                                                            
                 anticipated by Fujitani.  Claims 21 and 28 also stand rejected                                                                         
                 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as obvious over Suzuki in view of                                                                                
                 Doemen. Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants or                                                                          
                 examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the brief and answer                                                                          
                 for the respective details thereof.                                                                                                    


                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered                                                                        
                 the  subject matter on appeal and the rejection advanced by                                                                            
                 the examiner.  Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments                                                                           

                          1A copy of the translation prepared by the U.S. Patent and                                                                    
                 Trademark Office is attached.  We will refer to the                                                                                    
                 translation by page number in this opinion.                                                                                            







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007