Appeal No. 1998-0178
Application No. 08/254,854
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the examiner as support for the prior art
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 24 and 26-30 particularly point out the
invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112. We
are also of the view that the disclosure of Fujii does not
fully meet the invention as set forth in claims 24 and 26-30.
Accordingly, we reverse.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007