Appeal No. 1998-1386 Page 6
Application No. 08/269,156
Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, as lacking a written description
and as non-enabled. Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 14-17, and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Fujisaki.
Claim 9 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Fujisaki in view of Guyon. Claims 1, 6, and 9 also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hullender.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner
in toto, we refer the reader to the briefs and answers for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 6-9, 12, 14-17, and 21.
Accordingly, we reverse. Our opinion addresses the following
issues:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007