Appeal No. 2000-0034
Application 08/473,634
1992
Harada et al. (Harada) 5,183,647 Feb. 2,
1993
Aida 5,275,798 Jan. 4,
1994
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Harada; claims 18,
30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Harada;
claims 18, 21-24, 29, 30, 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Mundt; and claims 19, 20, 25-28 and 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Mundt taken with
Akashi and Aida.
OPINION
We reverse the examiner’s rejections. We need to address
only the independent claims, which are claims 18, 33 and 34.
Rejection of claim 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Harada
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of the elements of the claim must be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007