Ex parte AKIBA et al. - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1998-2204                                                                                            
              Application No. 08/470,432                                                                                      


                      An additional reference of record relied on by this panel of the Board is:3                             
              Horton et al. (Horton)                       5,159,776                    Nov. 3, 1992                          
                                                                                        (filed Jul. 24, 1990)                 
                      The following rejections are before us for review.                                                      
                      Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Barnett.                      
                      Claims 16, 18 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over                    
              Saita in view of Cranston.                                                                                      
                      Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Saita in                      
              view of Cranston and Viveiros.                                                                                  
                      Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 15) and the answer (Paper No. 16) for the                     
              respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to the merits of these                      
              rejections.                                                                                                     
                                                         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.                                                                           





                      This reference was cited by the examiner in Paper No. 6 and a copy is of record in the application file.3                                                                                                      
                                                              3                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007