Appeal No. 1997-0318
Application 08/135,173
Reference is made to Appellants’ briefs and the Examiner's answer for their respective3 4
positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 18.
The Examiner has rejected all these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Haraguchi in view of Ishikawa.
We first consider the broadest independent, i.e., claim 2. The Examiner states that “Haraguchi
et al. shows all claimed structure except ‘sensitivity detecting means’ or ‘resetting means’.” [Answer,
page 3]. The Examiner notes further that Ishikawa shows the sensitivity means at column 13, lines 41
to 44 and to add such means to Haraguchi would have been obvious. [Id.]
Appellants argue that there is no basis to combine Haraguchi and Ishikawa [brief, pages 14 to
18]. Appellants also argue that the combination of Haraguchi and Ishikawa does not meet the claimed
limitations [brief, pages 11 to 14].
The courts have provided us a guidance in determining the propriety of an obviousness
3A reply brief was filed [paper no. 25] and was entered in the record, however, no further
response was deemed necessary by the Examiner [paper no. 26].
4We have considered the latest version of the Examiner’s answer for our discussion here
[paper no. 23].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007