Appeal No. 96-1446
Application 08/103,174
(filed July 17, 1986)
Claims 2 to 5 and 8 to 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon
Bly in view of Yoshimura, further in view of Shiraishi.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by the examiner in the Answer,
and for the additional reasons presented here, we will sustain
the prior art rejection of all claims on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 103. To round-out the examiner's detailed
analysis of the claimed invention and appellant's arguments,
as well as the teachings and suggestions of the references
relied upon, we add the following.
To the extent appellant argues that the purposes of the
references relied upon by the examiner are different from the
appellant’s disclosed purpose, this is not pertinent to the
issue and is essentially irrelevant if the prior art teachings
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007