Appeal No. 1997-3152 Page 14
Application No. 08/116,305
invention of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. As independent claim 8
contains language similar to claim 1, the rejection of claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is also reversed. As claims 2, 9, 10,
14, 15, and 18 depend from claims 1 or 8, the rejection of
claims 2, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nakayama considered with Chu and Atobe is
likewise reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 3, 17, and 19, as
independent claim 3 has similar language as claim 1 and the
Ohno
reference, additionally relied upon by the examiner does not
overcome the deficiencies of Nakayama, Chu and Atobe.
Therefore the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and
claims 17 and 19 which depend from claim 3, is therefore
reversed.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103, as these claims depend from claim 3, and the
additional reference to Zimmerman does not overcome the
deficiencies of Nakayama, Chu, Atobe and Ohno, the rejection
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007