Appeal No. 2000-1347
Application No. 08/740,283
the issue. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l,
222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
also see In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335
(CCPA 1977); In re Olson, 212 F.2d 590, 592, 101 USPQ 401, 402
(CCPA 1954). The unreliability of Kogure’s drawings in this
regard is highlighted by the analysis set forth in the
appellant’s reply brief which demonstrates that the relative
dimensions shown in Figure 10 are not even consistent with the
insulating and heat-generating layer thicknesses expressly
specified in the underlying specification. Thus, the
examiner’s reliance on Figure 10 to establish that Kogure
meets the L1, L2 and L3 limitations in claim 1 is not well
founded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2 through 7 which
depend therefrom, as being anticipated by Kogure.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 9 through 16 as being
unpatentable over Kogure in view of Watanabe
Independent claim 9 is essentially similar to independent
claim 1 and also requires that the distance L3 from the inner
end of a carrier to the outer end of the current receiver
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007