Appeal No. 1998-3015 Page 3
Application No. 08/790,373
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed April 1, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 10,
filed March 9, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 12, filed May
4, 1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
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.
Claim 6
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sakai.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007