Appeal No. 96-1651
Application 07/987,186
us that the Ito teaching of exclusive reliance upon soldering or
brazing would not have been suggestive of any mechanical joining
means, as claimed. Accordingly, the claimed invention would not
have been rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the teaching
of Ito.
In summary, this panel of the board has:
reversed the rejection of claims 13, 18, 20, and 23
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite;
reversed the rejection of claims 13, 20, 23, 26, 27,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Oda; and
reversed the rejection of claims 13, 18, 20, and 23
through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ito.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007