Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
Claim 26 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Amemiya. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3).
Claim 26 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Maher. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
Claim 27 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amemiya in view
of Savage. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
Claim 27 is rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Maher in view of
Savage or Otsubo. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that none of the rejections are well
founded. Accordingly, we will reverse the § 112, second paragraph, § 102 and § 103
rejections. Our reasons for this conclusion follow.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007