Ex parte BORDES et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 1997-1230                                                                                                                                              
                     Application 08/274,807                                                                                                                                            


                                their fabrication.  The plastic hub 16 is preferably                                                                                                   
                                injection-molded of liquid crystal plastic to five                                                                                                     
                                to ten micrometer accuracy using otherwise                                                                                                             
                                conventional fabrication techniques.  With liquid                                                                                                      
                                crystal plastic material and a readily-attained five                                                                                                   
                                to ten micrometer molding accuracy, no subsequent                                                                                                      
                                machining is required to give good results.                                                                                                            
                                [Specification, page 4.]                                                                                                                               


                                The following references are relied upon by the examiner                                                                                               
                     as evidence of obviousness:                                                                                                                                       
                                Cheney                                                3,917,068                                  Nov.  4, 1975                                         
                                Sakaguchi et al (Sakaguchi) 4,847,826                                                            Jul. 11, 1989                                         
                                Suzuki       2                                        4-125879                                   Apr. 27, 1992                                         
                     (Japan)                                                                                                                                                           
                                Claims 1-5, 8, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                                                                                               
                     103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi in view of Suzuki.                                                                                                       
                                Claims 6, 7, 10 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                                                                                               
                     § 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi and Suzuki as                                                                                                          
                     applied in the rejection of claim 1 et al., and further in                                                                                                        
                     view of Cheney.                                                                                                                                                   
                                The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer                                                                                                  


                                2Our understanding of this foreign language document is                                                                                                
                     derived from a translation prepared in the Patent and                                                                                                             
                     Trademark Office.  A copy of said translation is attached to                                                                                                      
                     this decision.                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007