Appeal No. 2004-0551 Page 3
Application No. 09/393,256
(2) Claims 1 to 7, 10 and 21 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Weiland;
(3) Claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kurokawa; and
(4) Claims 8 and 30 to 332 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Weiland.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 18, mailed June 3, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 17, filed March 13, 2003) and reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed August 7, 2003) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
2 While the statement of this rejection recites only claims 8, 30, 32 and 33, the body of the
rejection also treats claim 31. In addition, the appellant in the brief (p. 13) argued the rejection of claim 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we consider claim 31 as being subject to this ground of rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007