Ex parte ANDERSON et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-3035                                                        
          Application No. 08/580,036                                                  


          112.  Claims 6 and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                   
          103(a) as being unpatentable over either Yoshizawa or                       
          Nagasaki.                                                                   
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the                                                                    
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the                 
          respective details thereof.                                                 
                                      OPINION                                         
              We have carefully considered the subject matter on                     
          appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments              
          in support of the rejections and the evidence of obviousness                
          relied upon by the Examiner as support for the prior art                    
          rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into                      
          consideration, in reaching our decision, 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 Examiner’s Answer.                                                   
               It is our view, after consideration of the record before                                                                    
          us, that the disclosure in this application fails to describe               
          the  invention as recited in claims 1-24 in a manner which                  
          complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  We reach                
          the opposite conclusion with respect to claims 25 and 26.  We               
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007