Appeal No. 2000-1978 Page 3
Application No. 08/898,905
Claims 1 to 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 24 to 28 and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Takemoto.
Claims 10 and 13 to 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed September 13, 1999) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 17, filed June 28, 1999) for the appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007