Appeal No. 1998-3326 Page 4
Application No. 08/498,819
The prior art applied in rejecting the claims follows:
Miyazaki 4,939,741 July 3, 1990
Okada et al. (Okada) 5,396,225 Mar. 7,
1995
Claims 1 and 3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Miyazaki in view of Okada. Rather than
reiterate the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto,
we refer the reader to the briefs and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejection of the examiner. Furthermore, we
duly considered the arguments and evidence of the appellants
and examiner. After considering the record, we are persuaded
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-10.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007