Appeal No. 1997-3503
Application No. 08/172,866
GROUNDS OF REJECTION3
Claims 29, 31 and 35-374 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma.
Claims 32-33, 50 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma further in view of Forrest.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma further in view of ‘813.
Claims 39-40, 42 and 46-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma further in view of
Rosenfield.
Claims 43, 44 and 52-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma and Rosenfield further in
view of Forrest.
Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over (‘061), in view of (‘622) and Sakuma, Rosenfield and further in view of ‘813.
Claims 29, 31, 35-40, 42 and 46-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Asakura in view of (‘622).
3 We note the examiner withdrew the final rejection of claim 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, in the July 21, 1995 Advisory Action
(Paper No. 34).
4 We note the following typographical error in appellants’ Appendix of claims on
appeal. Claim 37 should depend from claim 29 not canceled claim 30. See
appellants’ amendment Paper No. 15, received April 5, 1993, page 4. We
considered claim 37 as depending from claim 29.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007