Appeal No. 1999-2290 Page 3
Application No. 08/763,955
other and at the same angular velocity and direction as said
second hand.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Kamiyama et al (Kamiyama) 5,339,293 Aug.
16, 1994
Claims 7-14 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted
rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17,
mailed June 17, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper
No. 16, filed May 3, 1999) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst. Only those arguments actually made by appellant
have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief
have not been considered. See 37 CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007