Appeal No. 1999-1109
Application No. 08/359,904
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Appellant makes only conclusory
statements that Chia and Tanaka do not show the recited
limitations of these claims (brief at page 18). Such statements
do not constitute proper arguments based on substantial line of
reasoning or factual evidence. Moreover, we have already
discussed the limitations recited in claims 18 and 19.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 17-19
over Chia, Tanaka and Benveniste or Kojima or Ramsdale or Yamada
or Mende.
However, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 17-19
over Chia, Tanaka and Ivanov, as Ivanov is not prior art against
these claims, as noted at pages 2 and 3 or this decision.
In summary, we have sustained the rejection of claims
17-20, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, written
description; the rejection of claims 17-20, but not of claims 2-
10, under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; claims 11-13, 15, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Gudmundson; claims 11-13
and 21 as anticipated by Chia; rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 over Chia and Schellinger; claims 3-5
and 14 over Chia, Schellinger and Shiotsuki; and claims 17-19
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007