Appeal No. 2000-2258
Application No. 08/888,759
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Zerillo 4,833,486 May 23, 1989
Kato et al. (Kato ‘705) 5,219,705 Jun. 15, 1993
Kanda et al. (Kanda) 5,582,106 Dec. 10, 1996
(filed May 11, 1995)
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 5,677,098 Oct. 14, 1997
(filed Dec. 27, 1995)
Kato et al. (Kato ‘250) 5,714,250 Feb. 03, 1998
(filed Dec. 28, 1995)
Claims 2-8 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Kato ‘250 or Kato
‘705, in the alternative, in view of Kanda and Zerillo with respect
to claims 2, 3, and 5-8, and adds Nakayama to the basic combination
with respect to claim 4.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of obviousness
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 13, 1999 (Paper No. 23). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 24, 2000 (Paper No. 24), a
Reply Brief was filed March 28, 2000 (Paper No. 25), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated April 14,
2000 (Paper No. 26).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007