Appeal No. 2000-0257
Application No. 08/532,886
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Saitoh 4,587,640 May 6, 1986
Matsushita et al. (Matsushita) 4,777,626 Oct. 11, 1988
Claims 19-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Matsushita in view of Saitoh.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
1
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Apr. 29, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed Feb. 26, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 20, filed Jun. 29, 1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
1We note that the examiner has not included the text of a statement of the rejection in the answer
at page 3 nor has incorporated one from a prior action, but the examiner merely has set forth the heading
for a rejection. Therefore, we assume that the examiner intended to incorporate the rejection from the final
rejection, but the final rejection incorporates the rejection as set forth in paper number 12. Therefore, we
look to this paper to establish the prima facie case of obviousness.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007