Ex parte BAIL - Page 9

          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