Ex parte KLAS et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1998-0512                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/477,238                                                                                                             


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                                         
                 Brownell et al. (Brownell)                            5,299,956                  Apr. 05, 1994                                         
                 (filed Mar. 23,                                                                                                                        
                 1992)                                                                                                                                  
                 Sato    1                                    JP 2-268484                                  Nov. 02, 1990                                
                 (Japanese Kokai Patent Publication)                                                                                                    
                          Claims 11 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103                                                                     
                 as being unpatentable over Brownell in view of Sato.                                                                                   
                          Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,                                                                     
                 mailed September 2, 1997) for the examiner's complete                                                                                  
                 reasoning in support of the rejections, and to appellants'                                                                             
                 Brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 4, 1997) for appellants'                                                                             
                 arguments thereagainst.                                                                                                                
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          We have carefully considered the claims, the applied                                                                          
                 prior art references, and the respective positions articulated                                                                         
                 by appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                                                                               
                 review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 11                                                                         
                 through 27.                                                                                                                            



                          1Our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation                                                              
                 provided by the Translations Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office.                                                                
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007