Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
Claims 2 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Mori. Claims 1 and 3 to 4 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 as being unpatentable over Mori.
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mori.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs3 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We affirm-in-part.
We will discuss each ground of rejection separately.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 under this
2 In the statement of the rejection in the examiner’s answer at page 7,
the examiner rejects claims 1 and 2, however in the body of the rejection, the
examiner discusses claim 3 rather than claim 1. Appellant responds as if the
rejection were of claims 2 and 3. Accordingly we have considered clailms 2
and 3. They should, therefore, also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
3 A reply brief was filed as paper no. 16 and the examiner noted its
entry without further comment, see paper no. 17.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007