Appeal No. 1998-0916
Application 08/331,435
U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Jacobson.
3. Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Kayser.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 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 brief 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 disclosures of Uenishi, Jacobson and
Kayser do not fully meet the invention as set forth in claims
1-4, 10 and 11. Accordingly, we reverse.
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007