Appeal No. 1996-3262
Application No. 08/141,632
for the respective details thereof 10.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we will
sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bohrer et al, and the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahata
et al when taken with Cole, Olmstead or Miura et al.
We do not sustain the following rejections:
1) The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Kimoto et al; and
2) The rejection of claims 1-3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nakahata et al; and
3) The rejection of claims 5, 6 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over Ohta et al when taken with Nakahata et al and Inada et
al; and
4) The rejection of claims 2-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
10
10 A letter from the Examiner was mailed April 25, 1997. It
stated that Appellants' Response to Supplemental Examiner's
Answer had been entered and considered, but no further response
by the Examiner was deemed necessary.
This case was remanded to the Examiner on November 7, 2000,
to consider the IDS received October 12, 2000. By letter mailed
March 5, 2001, the Examiner stated that the IDS did not comply
with 37 CFR §§ 1.97 and 1.98 and noted that it had been placed in
the file. A second IDS was received February 24, 2001, and in a
letter mailed March 27, 2001, the Examiner stated that the IDS
filed February 24, 2001, had been considered and entered.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007