Appeal No. 1998-0728
Application 08/468,231
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans and Caimi.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evans and Caimi, as applied in the
rejection of claims 1 and 3, further in view of Kurami.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evans and Caimi, as applied in the
rejection of claim 1, further in view of Aoyama.3
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 32) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the Examiner's Answer (Paper
No. 38) (referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the Brief (Paper No. 37) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.3
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evans, Caimi, and Kurami,
as applied in the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, further
in view of Aoyama. However, claims 7 and 8 depend on claim 1.
Thus, the statement of the rejection should only refer to the
rejection of claim 1 and should not include Kurami.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007