Appeal No. 2000-1628
Application No. 09/163,013
rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over Kawaguchi in
view of Czernik and Ohashi, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 14 through 16 and 18 as being unpatentable
over Yoshino in view of Czernik, or the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 17 as being unpatentable over
Yoshino in view of Czernik and Ohashi.
Finally, upon return of the application to the technology
center, the examiner should evaluate whether the appellants’
specification complies with the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, with respect
to the subject matter recited in claim 18.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007