Ex Parte SONE et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 1999-2506                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/545,254                                                                                 

                                                    THE REJECTION                                                        
                                                                                                                        
              Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, 15 through 20, 22 through 24, 26 through 28, 31through 38,                            
              40 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in                   
              view of Palackal, Matsumoto and Brekner.2 3                                                                


                                                     OPINION                                                             

              We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and the                       
              examiner and agree with the examiner essentially for the reasons set forth in the Answer that              
              the rejection of the claims under § 103(a) is well founded.  Accordingly, we affirm this                   
              rejection and add the following comments for emphasis.                                                     
              As an  initial matter the appellants  state that, “[c]laims 7, 9, 10, 134 [sic, 13],  15-                  
              24, 26-28, 31 and 33-41 will stand or fall independently of each other.” See Brief, page 5.                
              The only argument presented with respect to any of the dependent claims however, is a                      
              recitation of the limitation of the claimed subject matter followed by the sentence, “[t]his               
              aspect of the present invention is neither disclosed nor suggested by any of the cited                     




                     2The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs have been withdrawn.             
                     3Although Palackal has a publication date of December 14, 1994, subsequent to appellants’ priority  
              date, said priority date has not been perfected.  Accordingly, Palackal is available as a reference.  We further
              note that a counterpart of Palackal has issued in the United States.  See US Patent No. 5, 401,817 bearing a
              filing date of May 20, 1993.                                                                               
                                                           4                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007