Ex Parte Haraguchi - Page 3




                Appeal No. 2006-1281                                                                                  Page 3                    
                Application No. 09/926,029                                                                                                      



                                                            Applied Prior Art                                                                   
                Watanabe     4,684,272   Aug. 4, 1987                                                                                           
                Haraguchi et al. (Haraguchi)  5,819,500   Oct. 13, 1998                                                                         
                Kanai      5,931,588   Aug. 3, 1999                                                                                             

                                                             The Rejections                                                                     
                         Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as                                               
                containing subject matter which was not described in the appellant’s specification so as                                        
                to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the appellant, at the time the application                                   
                was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.                                                                             
                         Claims 8 and 9 also stand rejected as being unpatentable over Watanabe or                                              
                Kanai in view of Haraguchi or, in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Haraguchi                                         
                in view of Watanabe or Kanai.                                                                                                   
                         Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                          
                the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the examiner's answer                                                 
                (mailed November 1, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the                                               
                rejections and to the appellant's brief (filed August 26, 2005) for the appellant's                                             
                arguments thereagainst.                                                                                                         













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

Last modified: November 3, 2007