Appeal No. 1997-3635
Application No. 08/498,357
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 1 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, and
19 are properly rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
However, we reach the opposite conclusion with regard to the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12,
14 through 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We note that Appellant does not respond in the brief to
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 7, 11, 17, 18, and 20
under
35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular, the rejections are as follow:
claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wong
and Yu; claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wong
and Whitten; claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
1Appellant filed an appeal brief on August 5, 1996.
Appellant also filed a reply brief on May 3, 2000, which
included a correct copy of the claims.
2The Examiner mailed a supplemental answer on
April 11, 2000, requiring a correct copy of the claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007