Appeal No. 2000-0007 Page 10
Application No. 08/586,919
critical date for determining whether or not a particular
reference is available as prior art against the application. 4
Since the filing date of Matsuzaki (i.e., July 11, 1995) is
subsequent to the international filing date (i.e., July 27,
1994) of this national stage application, we are unable to
establish Matsuzaki as prior art under any section of 35
U.S.C. § 102.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Claims 13 to 15, 17, 20 and 24
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 4-5) that "Pirre
fails to show an ultra-sonic device" and that based upon the
teachings of Suyama of an ultra-sonic anti-collision device,
it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art "to modify the
cart of Pirre to include the ultra-sonic device."
4See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §
1895.01.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007