Appeal No. 1999-2413
Application No. 08/754,203
Claims 3, 4, 6-16, 24, 25, 27-37, 41, 43, and 44 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Karasawa in view of Eino.1 In a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), claims 3, 4, 6-11, 14-16, 24, 25, 27-30, 33-37, 43, and
44 stand finally rejected as being unpatentable over Karasawa in
view of Kikuchi. Claim 42 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eino alone.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support of
the rejections and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
Examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with the
Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
1 As a result of the entry of the Nov. 25, 1998 amendment after final
rejection, the Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 9, 10, 12-16, 24, 25, 27-37, and 42.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007