Ex parte NISHIO et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 2000-1917                                                        
          Application 09/076,863                                                      


          Johnson                      3,489,209              Jan. 13,                
          1970                                                                        
          Engler et al. (Engler)       1,103,944              Apr.  6,                
          1961                                                                        
          German Patent Document1                                                     
          The prior art shown in Figures 8 through 10 and discussed on                
          specification pages 1 through 4 of the appellants’ disclosure               
          (the admitted prior art)                                                    
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)              
          as being unpatentable over the German reference in view of                  
          Johnson.                                                                    
               Claims 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                
          as being unpatentable over the German reference in view of                  
          Johnson and the admitted prior art.                                         
               Attention is directed to the appellants’ brief (Paper No.              
          12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 13) for the                     
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner with                
          regard to the merits of these rejections.2                                  

               1An English language translation of this reference, prepared by the United
          States Patent and Trademark Office, is appended hereto.                     

               2Since it has not been restated in the answer, the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
          paragraph, rejection set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 7) is assumed to have
          been withdrawn by the examiner in light of the amendments made subsequent to final
          rejection (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957)).            
                                          3                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007