Appeal No. 1997-3690
Application 08/427,163
IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 24, pgs. 1293-1295
(July 1981 (Tsang).
Claims 1 though 3, 5 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Mizuno. Claim 4 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in
view of Hunter. Claims 7, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 16 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Tsang in view of Mizuno.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Briefs and Answer for the 1
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 3, 5 and 9 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, we will sustain the
rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejection of
1Appellants' filed an Appeal Brief on November 25, 1996.
Appellants' filed a Reply Brief on March 17, 1997. Examiner
mailed an office communication on April 28, 1997 stating that
the Reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007