Appeal No. 1999-0595
Application 08/704,186
invention. Therefore, the examiner has not addressed the
obviousness of these differences between Ishii and the claimed
invention. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness, and we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 9.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007