Ex parte AKIOKA et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1996-1777                                                                                     Page 3                        
                 Application No. 08/034,009                                                                                                             

                          Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                                     
                 unpatentable over Akioka '241 .  Claim 24 stands rejected1                                                                                  
                 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as anticipated by, or in the                                                                                  
                 alternative,                                                                                                                           
                 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as obvious over Akioka '797 .  Claim 24                           2                                              
                 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable                                                                            
                 over Kobayashi.                                                                                                                        
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                                                                        
                 careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims,                                                                         
                 to the applied prior art references, and to the respective                                                                             
                 positions articulated by appellants and the examiner.  As a                                                                            
                 consequence of our review, we find that the examiner has not                                                                           
                 carried the burden of presenting a prima facie case of                                                                                 
                 anticipation under 35 U.S.C.  102 or a prima facie case of                                                                            
                 obviousness under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                      Accordingly, we will not                                       
                 sustain the examiner's rejections.                                                                                                     


                          1published UK patent application No. 2 206 241                                                                                
                          2published PCT application (WO 88/06797).  All subsequent                                                                     
                 references in this opinion to Akioka '797 are references to                                                                            
                 the English language translation of the published PCT                                                                                  
                 application of record.                                                                                                                 







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007