Appeal No. 1999-0427
Application 08/782,272
Claims 1-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate disclosure.
Claims 1-9, 14-18, 20-24, 26, 27, 32 and 33 also stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
teachings of Tange in view of Nakayama. Claims 34-37 also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of Tange in view of Nakayama and further in
view of Masuda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007