Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
subject matter are set forth in representative independent claims
1, 15, 23 and 34. A copy of these claims, which is taken from
the appellants’ brief, is appended to this decision.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner in the section 102 and section 103 rejections before us
on this appeal:
Bowen et al. (Bowen) 4,579,750 Apr. 1, 1986
Barnes et al. (Barnes) 5,178,739 Jan. 12, 1993
Mosely et al. (Mosely) 5,431,799 Jul. 11, 1995
Ito et al. (Ito) 0 288 608 Nov. 2, 1988
(published European Patent Application)
Hoshino 5-2558591 Oct. 5, 1993
(published Japanese Unexamined Patent Application)
Shiraishi et al. (Shiraishi) 5-3114191 Nov. 22, 1993
(published Japanese Kokai Patent Application)
Claims 1, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 32 and 34 stand rejected
“under 35 U.S.C. [§] 102(e) as being anticipated by Mosely”
(answer, page 3).2
1
1 Our understanding of these references is derived from
translations thereof which have been obtained by the Board. For
the appellants’ edification a translation copy for each of these
references is appended to this decision.
2
2 Mosely is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
Therefore, the above noted rejection should have been based on
§ 102(a) for the reasons explained in the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.02(a), page 700-24 (Rev. 1, Feb.
2003). This oversight on the examiner’s part has no impact on
the issues before us and consequently is harmless.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007