Appeal No. 1999-0848
Application No. 08/634,310
the Maeda reference would be modified in order to overcome the
deficiency discussed supra to support an obviousness rejection.
In summary, we have not sustained either the 35 U.S.C. §
102 or the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 8 based on Maeda.
We have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
representative claim 8 based on Nakano, but have not sustained
the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by
Nakano. We have sustained the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claim 8 based on each one of Jang and May.
Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting independent
claim 8, as well as dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 10-12, which
fall together with claim 8, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, or,
alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR §
1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007