Ex parte YEN - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1998-0948                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/198,343                                                                                 


                                               1                                                                         
                     Claims 24-28, 31 and 32  stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being                              
                                                        2                                                                
              anticipated by Arnold.   Claims 1-5, 7-13  and 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                        
              § 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Calle.  Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected                   
              under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and Calle in view of Bentley.                      
              Claim 32 also stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold.                     
              Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                           
              Arnold in view of Bentley.   Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                       
              being unpatentable over Arnold in view of Calle.                                                           
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                   
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                        
              answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Apr. 1, 1997) and the supplemental examiner's answer                          
              (Paper No. 25, mailed Sep. 3, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning   in support of the                       
              rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 21, filed Dec. 23, 1996) and reply                     
              brief(Paper No. 23, filed Jun. 2, 1997) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                        


                     1We note that the examiner has listed claim 32 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, but has     
              not specifically addressed the claim in this rejection.  The examiner has also listed claim 32 as being    
              rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and has addressed the claim in this rejection.  Therefore, we will review   
              claim 32 as being rejected only under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Arnold.                                         
                     2We note that the examiner has listed claims 8 and 9 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over   
              Arnold and Calle, but did not specifically address these claims in the rejection.  The examiner also listed
              claims 8 and 9 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Arnold, Calle and Bentley.  In this rejection, 
              the examiner addressed the claims.  Therefore, we will review claims 8 and 9 as being rejected under 35    
              U.S.C. § 103 over Arnold, Calle and Bentley.                                                               
                                                           3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007