Appeal No. 1999-2337
Application 08/655,257
1997
(filed Mar. 26, 1995)
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kuga.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kuga in view
of Cline.
Claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kuga in view of DeMond.
Claims 21, 24, 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kuga in view of Karras.
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for 1
the details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17
1 Appellants filed an Appeal Brief on March 25, 1999.
Appellants filed a Reply Brief on July 26, 1999. The Examiner
mailed a notice of entry of the Reply Brief on September 30,
1999.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007