Appeal No. 2000-0142 Page 5
Application No. 08/705,569
anticipated by De La Plaza. Claims 21 and 22 stand rejected
under § 103(a) as obvious over De La Plaza in view of Seki.
Claims 1-10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over AAPA in view of De La Plaza.
(Examiner’s Answer at 7.) 2
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10, 14, and 19 as
indefinite but not in so rejecting claims 15 and 20. We are
also persuaded that he did not err in rejecting claims 18 and
19 as anticipated but did in so rejecting claim 20. In
addition, we are persuaded that the examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 19, 21, and 22 as obvious but did so in
rejecting claims 1-10, 14, 15 and 20. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part. We address the following rejections:
• indefiniteness rejections
• anticipation rejection over De La Plaza
2Although the examiner includes a patent to Nagasawa in
his “listing of the prior art of record relied upon in the
rejection of claims under appeal,” (Examiner’s Answer at 4),
the patent is not applied in the aforementioned grounds 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