Appeal No. 1998-0495
Application No. 08/324,540
Claims 8, 10 through 12, 14 through 18, 21, 24 through
28, 30 through 36, 39 through 41, 43, and 44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner applies Lloyd, Yamazaki, Doane, and
Yokoi against all of the claims, with the addition of Erb for
claims 8 and 25, Kikuchi for claims 12 and 28, Castleberry for
claims 14 through 16 and 30 through 32, and Soref for claims
39 and 41.1
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lloyd in view of Doane and Yokoi.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 60,
mailed June 9, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No.
59, filed March 18, 1997) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
We note that on page 10 of the Answer, the examiner withdraws the1
rejection of claims 36, 43, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007