Appeal No. 2000-0007 Page 9
Application No. 08/586,919
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 13 to 15, 17
and 19 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 21 and 22
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 10)
that even if it would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to have modified Suyama to include a pair a ultrasonic
receiving means as taught by Matsuzaki, the combination still
would not have arrived at the claimed combination. In that
regard, the examiner's proposed modification of Suyama would
not have made up for the deficiencies of Suyama with respect
to the anticipation rejection of claim 13 discussed above.
Moreover, we agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 9)
that Matsuzaki is not prior art to the present application.
The examiner's response to this argument (answer, p. 7) is
that Matsuzaki "is prior art to the application under 35
U.S.C. 103(a)." However, the examiner did not furnish any
reasoning or rationale why Matsuzaki is prior art. The
international filing date (i.e., July 27, 1994) is the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007