Ex parte SHINOHARA - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1998-1097                                                                                                                                              
                     Application No. 08/557,484                                                                                                                                        

                                The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                                                                                                        
                     Senuma et al. (Senuma)                                           5,124,761                                                                                        
          Jun. 23, 1992                                                                                                                                                                
                     Miwa et al. (Miwa)                                               5,414,291                                            May  09,                                    
                     1995                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                           (Filed Jan. 31, 1994)                                                       
                     Ito (Published Japanese                                          4-196583                                             Jul. 16,                                    
                     1992                                                                                                                                                              
                     Kokai Patent Application)1                                                                                                                                        
                                Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 stand finally rejected under                                                                                                  
                     35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Senuma.  In a                                                                                                          
                     separate rejection, claims 2-8 stand finally rejected under 35                                                                                                    
                     U.S.C.                                                                                                                                                            
                      102(e) as being anticipated by Miwa.  Lastly, claims 9-12                                                                                                       
                     stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being                                                                                                          
                     anticipated by Ito.                                                                                                                                               
                                Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the                                                                                               
                     Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the                                                                                                       
                     respective details.                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                      OPINION                                                                                          
                                We have carefully considered the subject matter on                                                                                                     
                     appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner and the                                                                                                           

                                1 A copy of the translation provided by the U.S. Patent &                                                                                              
                     Trademark Office, September 1997, is included and relied upon                                                                                                     
                     for this decision.                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007