Appeal No. 95-4754
Application No. 08/111,905
As to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), we
concluded supra that although the claimed invention was
encompassed by claim 19 of Yachigo, it was not sufficient to
render appellants’ invention obvious, nor was it a mere
variation of Yachigo's invention. Accordingly, a § 103
rejection based upon § 102(g) is not sustainable.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007