Ex parte PARK - Page 4




               Appeal No. 1998-1469                                                                                                
               Application No. 08/351,045                                                                                          


                       Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16-19, 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                            

               unpatentable over Ichijo.                                                                                           

                       Claims 2, 8, 10-15, 20 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                 

               over Ichijo in view of Yokogawa.                                                                                    

                       Claims 21, 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Ichijo                 

               in view of Taylor.                                                                                                  

                       Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant                 

               regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No. 32, mailed                

               February 8, 1996), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 40, mailed November 14, 1996) and  the                          

               supplemental examiner's answer (Paper No. 45, mailed March 31, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning                   

               in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 39, filed August 8, 1996), reply              

               brief (Paper No. 43, filed January 14, 1997), supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 46, filed June 2,                 

               1997) and the second supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 48, filed September 10, 1997) for the                      

               appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                                                 

                       The examiner’s answer set forth a new ground of rejection in which claims 1-29 were rejected                

               under 35 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph.  In response to the new ground of rejection, appellant filed               

               an amendment (Paper No. 41, filed January 14, 1997).  In a communication from                                       




                                                               -4-                                                                 





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007