Ex parte QUINN et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1997-3727                                                        
          Application 08/416,127                                                      


          over Sugimoto in view of Suda.                                              
          Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of                       
          Appellants and the Examiner, we make reference to the brief                 
          and the answer for their respective positions.                              




          OPINION                                                                     
              We have considered the rejections advanced by the                      
          Examiner. We have, likewise, reviewed Appellants’ arguments                 
          against the rejections as set forth in the brief.                           
          It is our view, after consideration of the record before                    
          us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C.  102 and under 35                  
          U.S.C.     103 are not proper. Accordingly, we reverse.                    
               At the outset, we note that Appellants have elected                    
          [brief, page 5] to group claim 1 by itself, and claims 3 to 5               
          together.  We now consider the various rejections.                          
               Rejection under 35 U.S.C.  102                                        
               The Examiner has rejected claim 1 as being anticipated by              
          Sugimoto.                                                                   
               We note that a prior art reference anticipates the                     


                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007