Appeal No. 1998-2174
Application No. 07/813,733
“upper level apparatus,” particularly in view of the Abstract, Figure 1, and pages 4, 5,
10, and 11 of the reference. (See Answer, page 6.)
Appellants mention the Nakagawa reference (Brief, page 5), but do not address
the teachings of the reference that are relevant to the rejection. The only arguments
which may have been presented in rebuttal to the rejection of claims 8, 14, 15, and 24
appear on page 7 of the Brief, wherein appellants allege advantages in the claimed
“upper level apparatus.” However, the commentary avoids Nakagawa entirely. Thus,
appellants have failed to show error in the rejection of claims 8, 14, 15, and 24. We
therefore sustain the section 103 rejection of those claims.
CONCLUSION
Since we have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-13,
and the rejection of claims 8, 14, 15, and 24 under the same statute, the examiner’s
decision in rejecting claims 1-15 and 24 is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007