Appeal No. 95-2728
Application 07/735,668
apparatus is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of
patentability of the machine or apparatus itself. In re
Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967).
Under the circumstances recounted above, we cannot regard
the appealed apparatus claims as patentably distinguishable
over the apparatus of Kawasaki in the manner argued by the
appellants. Therefore, it is appropriate to sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of apparatus claims 29 through 35
and 46 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Arikado
and Suzuki.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007