Appeal No. 1998-2969
Application No. 08/317,818
Wada et al. (Wada) EP 0 366 472 May 02, 1990
Amano et al. (Fuji Electronic2) EP 0 484 887 May 13, 1992
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Fuji Electronic or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fuji Electronic.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over
Amano or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amano. Claim 4 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over either Fuji Electronic or
Amano. The examiner’s answer includes a new grounds of rejection. Claims 1-33
stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent 5,335,385 in view of
Wada.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Mar. 12, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 15, filed Sep. 12,
1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed May 9, 1997) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
2 The examiner uses the name Fuji Electronic to refer to this document even though the assignee
is Fuji Electric Co. We will refer to it by the same name as the examiner for consistency.
3 We note that claim 2 has been canceled prior to the rejection. Therefore we do not address this
claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007