Appeal No. 1999-0009
Application 08/648,386
the rejection of claim 2 under § 103(a) as being obvious over
Uetama in view of Horiuchi further in view of Nakatsuma; the
rejection of claim 3 under § 103(a) as being obvious over Uetama
in view of Horiuchi further in view of Sakata; the rejection of
claims 4-6, 10, 16, 18, and 21 under § 103(a) as being obvious
over Uetama in view of Horiuchi further in view of Sakata even
further in view of Nakatsuma; and the rejection of claims 24-31
as being obvious over Uetama in view of Sakata and Nakatsuma.
Rather than reiterate appellant’s arguments in toto, we
refer the reader to the request for the details thereof. After
reconsidering our original decision in light of the arguments,
we are persuaded of error therein regarding the nonobviousness of
claims 9, 11-15, 17, 19, 20, and 22. Therefore, we grant the
appellant’s request. We consider the following claims:
• claims 9, 11-14, and 22
• claims 15, 17, 19, and 20
• claim 23.
We begin with claims 9, 11-14, and 22.
I. Claims 9, 11-14, and 22
The examiner asserts, “[s]ince Uetama serves the same
purpose as that served by the claimed invention, i.e., stop or
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007