Appeal No. 96-4122
Application 08/077,419
necessary motivation to combine teachings is mere conclusory
and the examiner has not specifically articulated just how the
teachings from the references give rise to the appellants’
claimed invention. Stating that it would have been obvious to
combine the teachings of Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko,
Kamimura, and Kawagoe does not explain how these multiple
references are combined to arrive at the appellants’ claimed
invention.
As for claim 5, which depends from claim 4, the examiner
additionally applied Shiraishi to meet the specific claim
features recited therein. However, as applied by the
examiner, Shiraishi does not make up for the deficiencies of
Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Rapiejko, Kamimura, and Kawagoe as
already discussed above with respect to claims 4 and 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Majeed, Adachi, Chan, Kamimura, and
Shiraishi cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Majeed, Adachi, and Chan is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007