Appeal No. 96-0616
Application 08/036,249
web portion 14 to fix the right lead 6 in position as claimed
in claim 2. We agree. Further, it is our conclusion that
Kuwahara does not teach or suggest the elements found lacking
in Hori. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hori in view of
Kuwahara.
Rejection (4)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and, therefore, contains
the same limitations of claim 2. Based on our review of
Kitagawa, it
is our conclusion that Kitagawa does not teach or suggest the
elements found lacking in Hori and Kuwahara. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Hori, Kuwahara and Kitagawa.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims
8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kikuchi is
reversed, as is the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Kuwahara, the rejection of claims 2 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Hori in view of Kuwahara and the rejection
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007