Appeal No. 1998-0688
Application 08/274,158
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for 3 4
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9 are
properly rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
addition, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6
through 12, 15, and 17 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we reverse.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hosaka, Appellant on
pages 10 through 13 of the brief argues that the black color
or the paint on Hosaka’s document covering surface with a
“small reflectance” is conventionally related to a reflectance
Examiner’s answer mailed October 15, 1996.
3 Appellant filed an appeal brief on June 17, 1996.
Appellant also filed a reply brief on December 16, 1996 which
was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner with further
comments in a supplemental answer.
4 The Examiner mailed a supplemental answer on March 3,
1997.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007