Appeal No. 2004-0557
Application No. 08/829,187
Amano JP 1-1818402 Jul. 19, 1989
Claims 1 through 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Amano.3
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Amano in view of Buchin.4
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 37,
mailed June 18, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
Nos. 34 and 35, filed January 4 and 18, 2002 respectively) and
Reply Brief (Paper No. 40, filed September 05, 2003) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
2 Our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation provided by
the Scientific and Technical Information Center of the Patent and Trademark Office. A
copy of the translation is enclosed with this decision.
3 Even though the final rejection indicated claim 19 as being rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102(b), and the examiner indicated that the statement of the status of the
claims contained in the brief (which included claim 19 as being rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102(b)) is correct, since the Examiner’s Answer did not include a rejection of
claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is considered withdrawn.
4 Even though the final rejection indicated claims 20 and 21 as being rejected
under
35 U.S.C. 103, and the examiner indicated that the statement of the status of the
claims contained in the brief (which included claims 20 and 21 as being rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103) is correct, since the Examiner’s Answer did not include a rejection of
claims 20 and 21, the rejection of claims 20 and 21 is considered withdrawn.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007