Appeal No. 1998-2515
Application 08/548,938
The examiner relies on the following references:
Oberg (Oberg ’094) 4,819,094 Apr. 04, 1989
Oberg (Oberg ’833) 2,193,833 Feb. 17, 19881
(UK application)
Claims 29, 33, 39 and 43 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Oberg ’094
or Oberg ’833 . Claims 30-32, 34-38, 40-42 and 44-48 stand2
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness
the examiner offers Oberg.
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
1This reference is referred to as Hutchinson Technology
in the examiner’s answer.
2Since Oberg ’094 and Oberg ’833 disclose essentially
the same subject matter, we will simply refer to Oberg as
designating Oberg ’094 or Oberg ’833.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007