Appeal No. 1999-1389
Application No. 08/618,485
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the appellant’s specification and claims, and to the respective positions
articulated by the appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the
examiner’s Answer1 for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection. We
further reference appellant’s Brief2, and appellant’s Reply Brief3 for the appellant’s
arguments in favor of patentability.
CLAIM GROUPING:
Appellant presents (Brief, page 3) two claim groupings. Group I (claims 1
and 2) do not stand or fall together with Group II (claims 3 and 4).
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Initially, appellant argues (Brief, pages 3-4) that the examiner cited the wrong
Yamamoto reference in his statement of the rejection. Appellant argues (Brief,
page 4) that “the rejection must be withdrawn (and properly restated in another
Office Action, if desired), as it does not show how the cited references combine to
make a prima facie case of obviousness.” Appellant’s arguments have been
considered and are not persuasive. Appellant not only had notice of the correct
Yamamoto reference (Brief, page 5, “the intended combination of references
including Yamamoto (BB)….”), but responded to the examiner’s position (Brief,
pages 4-10) with reference to the correct Yamamoto reference.
1 Paper No. 21, mailed September 1, 1998.
2 Paper No. 20, received June 24, 1998.
3 Paper No. 22, received October 30, 1998.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007