Appeal No. 1998-0871
Application No. 08/406,301
Lim et al. (Lim) 5,483,285 Jun. 09, 1996
(Filed Apr. 16, 1993)
Claims 1-8, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lim
in view of Dunlap and Miyashita. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Lim in view of Dunlap, Miyashita and Murayama .
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellants
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 16,
mailed July 23, 1997) and letter of communication (Paper No. 18, mailed November 13, 1997 stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no further response by the examiner is deemed
necessary) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper
No. 15, filed May 7, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 23, 1997) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but we will reverse the rejection of claims 7-12 for the reason set
forth, infra.
(3)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007