Appeal No. 2000-0160
Application 08/595,150
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Barber et al. (Barber) 4,966,870 October 30, 1990
Woo et al. (Woo) 5,451,543 September 19, 1995
Aoyama et al. (Aoyama) 5,592,024 January 7, 1997
(filed October 28, 1994)
Kalnitsky EP 0 523 856 January 20, 1993
(European Patent Application)
Claims 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Woo and Kalnitsky.
Claims 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woo and Kalnitsky, further in
view of Aoyama or Barber.
We refer to the Office action (Paper No. 16), the final
rejection (Paper No. 18), and the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 24) for a statement of the Examiner's rejection, and to the
brief (Paper No. 23) for a statement of Appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
New grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
A claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the
invention as described in the specification or in other
statements of record is subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007