Appeal No. 1996-0774 Page 4
Application No. 08/048,117
Kenzo. Claims 3, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Fumiaki in view of Maruta. Claim 8
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Fumiaki
in view of Yasuaki. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Fumiaki in view of Yasuaki further in
view of Maruta. Rather than repeat the arguments of the
appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the reader to the
briefs and the answers for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the record
before us, we cannot say that the evidence anticipates the
invention of claims 1, 5, and 6. We also cannot say that the
evidence and level of skill in the art would have suggested
the invention of claims 2-4 and 7-9. Accordingly, we reverse.
We address the anticipation of claims 1, 5, and 6 and the
obviousness of claims 2-4 and 7-9 seriatim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007