Appeal No. 1998-1096
Application No. 08/415,399
Claims 5 and 6 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Cannella. Claims 8-10 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Sugawara. Claim 7 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Cannella in view of Sugawara.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’
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 claims particularly point out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007