Appeal No. 1998-1698
Application No. 08/411,033
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hieda in view of Stevens ‘774. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hieda and Stevens ‘774 in view of Stevens ‘183.
Claims 4 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hieda, Stevens ‘774 and Stevens ‘183 in view of Higashitsutsumi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Nov. 13, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed Aug. 8, 1997) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
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 examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
For a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner is required to provide a reason
from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole, or knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, why one having ordinary skill in the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007