Appeal No. 1998-1441
Application No. 08/294,779
For the rejection of claim 80, the examiner adds Kaneko to the combined teaching
of the references applied against base claim 55. Appellants rely, as stated on page 29 of
the Brief, on the arguments presented on behalf of claim 55. Since we find the arguments
in support of the base claim unpersuasive, and do not consider Winsor a necessary
reference in the rejection but merely cumulative, we sustain the rejection of claim 80.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13-17, 21-24, 26, 27, 38, 47, 48, 52,
55, 58, 59, 61, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson,
Masaki, Kubota, Tsukada, and Winsor, but we have reversed the rejection of claim 28.
We have affirmed the rejection of claim 5, 11, 12, 34-37, 39-42, 51, 60, and 79 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson, Masaki, Kubota, Tsukada, Winsor,
and Moddel. We have affirmed the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Samuelson, Masaki, Kubota, Tsukada, Winsor, and Shibata, but we
have reversed the rejection of claims 30, 31, and 33. We have affirmed the rejection of
claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Samuelson, Masaki, Kubota,
Tsukada, Winsor, and Kaneko.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 3-5, 11-17, 21-24, 26-28, 30-42, 47,
48, 51, 52, 55, 58-62, 79, and 80 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-15-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007