Ex parte FREIER et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2000-1182                                                        
          Application No. 08/957,554                                                  


               (Japanese Kokai Patent Publication)                                    
          Ishiharada et al. (Ishiharada II)       7-198951       Aug. 01,             
          1995                                                                        
               (Japanese Kokai Patent Publication)                                    
               Claims 1, 11, 13 through 15, 17, 19, 24, and 25 stand                  
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                   
          Ishiharada I.                                                               
               Claims 20, 21, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiharada I.                              
               Claims 3 through 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiharada I in view of                    
          Ishiharada II.                                                              
               Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12,                
          mailed May 28, 1999) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22,               
          mailed May 3, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in                
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper                  
          No. 20, filed March 30, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 24,                
          filed July 6, 2000) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the claims, the applied                   
          prior art references, and the respective positions articulated              
          by appellants and the examiner.  As a consequence of our                    

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007