Appeal No. 1998-0496
Application 08/356,966
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by the disclosure of Saito. Claims 2-6 and 8-
11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Saito and Fukuda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s 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 the disclosure of Saito does not fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 1 and 7. We are also of the view that the
evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art
would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007