Appeal No. 1999-0404 Page 4
Application No. 08/580,256
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Kenkyujo.
Claims 9-14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of known prior art
(Jepson format of claim 9).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chiang in view of known prior art (Jepson
format of claim 9) as applied to claims 9 to 14 and 16 above,
and further in view of Kenkyujo.3
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. 17,
mailed June 9, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,
3Since claim 16 depends from claim 15 it would appear to
us that claim 16 should have been included in this ground of
rejection rather than the preceding ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007