Appeal No. 2004-0334 Page 3
Application No. 08/853,608
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Porter in view of Fukazawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed July 18, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 14, filed May 8, 2000) and reply brief
(Paper No. 17, filed August 28, 2000) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 10 and 13 to 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007