Appeal No. 1998-1020 Page 4
Application No. 08/381,423
A. Claims 2, 6 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Barkley in view of Okamura and
each of Miyoshi, Huck and Yamashita.
B. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Barkley in view of Okamura et al. and
each of Miyoshi, Huck and Yamashita, as applied above,
further in view of Fischer.6
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 29) and reply
brief (Paper No. 32) and the answer (Paper No. 30) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.
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
(...continued)5
forth in the final rejection had been overcome by the amendment of Paper No.
26. The answer, at page 2, states that the rejection under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 was also overcome by the amendment of Paper No.
26.
We note that the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 6, 21 and 24 set6
forth in the examiner's answer differ from those set forth in the final
rejection in that the examiner is no longer relying on the teachings of Shiba.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007