Appeal No. 2000-1320
Application No. 08/796,737
Claims 5-8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being clearly
anticipated by Yumura. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Mizuno.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 32, mailed Oct. 1, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 31, filed Aug. 24, 1999) and reply
brief (Paper No. 33, filed Nov. 29, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner maintains that Yumura clearly anticipates independent claim 5
with no discussion of the correspondence of the reference to the recited claim
limitations at page 3 of the answer and then states at page 5 of the answer that "[i]t is
curious situation that appellants state that a prima facie case [has not been made]
when appellants have had no difficulty identifying and correlating the elements of
Yumura et al with applicants claimed invention." We disagree with the examiner, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007