Appeal No. 2001-1956
Application 08/923,424
Claims 3, 4, 16, 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of the admitted prior art, DeVeer and Bass.2
Claims 7, 8, 20, 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art, DeVeer
and Hayashi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs (substitute brief,
Paper No. 25, reply brief, Paper No. 29) and the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 26) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
The combination of the admitted prior art and DeVeer is
essential to all the rejections on appeal. Therefore, we
consider this combination. We take claim 1 as an example. In
rejecting claim 1 under this combination (final rejection at
2 The rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
for lack of enablement, are withdrawn by the examiner (answer at
page 9). Furthermore, the objection to the drawings is a
procedural matter, and not for our consideration.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007