Appeal No. 1998-1869
Application 08/688,423
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs
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 Watanabe does not anticipate or render obvious
the invention as set forth in claims 1, 2 and 4. Accordingly,
we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as
anticipated by the disclosure of Watanabe. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007