Appeal No. 2001-1536
Application 08/428,256
Nishikawa et al. (Nishikawa) 5,146,232 September 8, 1992
Claims 2, 3, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nishikawa or Reggia.
Claims 2-4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goubau.
Claims 4-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau, each in
view of Shibano.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishikawa or Reggia or Goubau, each in view of
Parham.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 22) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 26) (pages referred to as
"Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Nishikawa
The examiner reads claim 10 on Figs. 1-4 of Nishikawa (FR2).
Nishikawa discloses that the vertical feeding plate 26 in Fig. 1
is an improvement to a feed line which connects at only one point
in Fig. 15 (col. 2, lines 7-59). Nishikawa has a plurality of
conducting wires 30. The difference between Nishikawa and the
subject matter of claim 10 is that Nishikawa discloses that the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007