Appeal No. 1996-1942 5
Application No. 07/977,834
Claims 15 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Sawai.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sawai.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Sawai in view of Ruus.
Claims 3, 5, 11, 13 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruus in view of Ozono and further in view of Dahm.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellant and
the examiner, and agree with the appellant that the rejections of claims 1 through 14 are
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections. We agree with the examiner
that the rejection of claims 15-26 are well founded. Accordingly, we sustain these
rejections.
As an initial matter, the appellant has argued that claims 1 through 14, claims 15
through 20, and claims 21 through 26 be considered separately. We agree.
Accordingly, we separately consider each of independent claims 1, 15 and 21, each
being representative of its respective grouping and being the only independent claims
present before us. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007