Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the teachings of Kaiser.
3. Claims 13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Siegmund or Kaiser
in view of Kawashima.
4. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief 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 appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief
along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007