Appeal No. 1998-1794
Application 08/738,467
Claims 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 31, 32 , 39, 40, and 42 stand2
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Hajec.
Claims 11, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.3
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hajec and MacLeod.
Claims 13, 17, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hajec and Shirotori.
Claims 16, 20, 21, 25, 27, 35-38 , and 41 stand rejected4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hajec and Rabe.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hajec and Yamashita.
The statement of the rejection in the Final Rejection2
refers to claims "31-31," which we interpret as a
typographical error that should have read "31-32." This is
confirmed by the statement of the rejection in the Examiner's
Answer.
Claim 34 has not been rejected or indicated to be3
allowable. Because claim 35, which depends on claim 34, has
been rejected, it is certain that claim 34 was intended to be
rejected. We group it with the § 103(a) rejection over Hajec.
Since dependent claims 35-37 have been rejected over Hajec and
Rabe, this should not create a new ground of rejection.
Claim 38 has not been rejected or indicated to be4
allowable. We treat it with the § 103(a) rejection of its
parent claim 35 over Hajec and Rabe.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007