Appeal No. 1998-2263
Application No. 08/692,612
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being unpatentable because the claimed
invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claims 28, 30, 31, and 34-39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being clearly anticipated by Shikata. Claims 28, 30, 31,
and 34-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen in
view of Tsay. Claims 28, 30, 31, and 34-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Nahmias in view of Tsay.
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. 23, mailed Apr. 22, 1998) for the examiner reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 22, mailed Mar. 31, 1998 ) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
At the outset, we note that the examiner and appellant have provided lengthy
discussions of their respective positions. After thorough review of these positions, we
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007