Appeal No. 1997-3152 Page 4
Application No. 08/116,305
Atobe, and Ohno as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 15, and
17-19, and further in view of Zimmerman.
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakayama considered with Chu, Atobe,
and Ohno as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 15, and 17-19,
and further in view of Nagaraj.
5. Claim 7 is stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakayama considered with Chu, Atobe,
and Ohno as applied to claims 1-3, 8-10, 14, 15, and 17-19,
and further in view of Nishi or Takahashi.
6. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakayama considered with Chu and Atobe
as applied to claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14, 15, and 18 and further in
view of Shiozaki.
7. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nakayama considered with Chu and
Atobe as applied to claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14, 15, and 18, and2
further in view of Itou.
2The examiner has erroneously omitted the prior art reference to Atobe
in the statement of this rejection. See the statement of the rejection of
claim 1, supra, from which claim 16 depends.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007