Appeal No. 2000-0946 Page 2
Application No. 08/704,217
The following prior art references have been relied upon as evidence of
obviousness in the rejections before us on appeal:
Oishi et al. (Oishi) 4,432,211 Feb. 21, 1984
Tamura et al. (Tamura) 4,549,073 Oct. 22, 1985
The following are the only rejections before us on appeal.1
(1) Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Tamura.
(2) Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Oishi.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 6 and 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief (Paper No. 9) for the appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
1 The examiner has withdrawn the other rejections, based on Hinman and Chidzey, set forth in the
final rejection. See page 3 of the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007