Appeal No. 1998-1901
Application 08/506,804
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Miyatake in
view of Cadet.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant 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 prior art rejections. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching
our decision, the appellant’s 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 claim 14 is in compliance with the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view that
none of the claims on appeal is properly rejected based on the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007