Ex parte BAIL - Page 10




                 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