Appeal No. 1998-1974
Application 07/415,923
teachings of Kaiser. As a result, the examiner has clearly
not addressed the obviousness of these differences.
Therefore, the examiner has once again failed to establish a
prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. Accordingly,
we do not sustain either of the alternative rejections of
claims 1, 8 and 9 based on Kaiser.
Finally, we consider the rejection of claims 13 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings
of Siegmund or Kaiser in view of Kawashima. We have noted the
deficiencies in Siegmund and Kaiser above. Since Kawashima
does not overcome these noted deficiencies, we do not sustain
either rejection of claims 13 and 21.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the examiner’s
rejections of the appealed claims. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, 13, 21 and 22 is
reversed. REVERSED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007