Appeal No. 1996-1777 Page 5
Application No. 08/034,009
At the outset, we note that appellants urge that neither
Akioka '797 or Kobayashi as separately applied by the examiner
against claim 24 is available as prior art thereto (reply
brief, pages 3, 4, 7, and 8). The examiner contends
otherwise. However, even if both of the above-noted
references were available as prior art to appealed claim 24,
we determine that the examiner has not presented a prima facie
case of anticipation or obviousness, on the present record.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the stated rejections for the
reasons as follows.
With regard to the examiner's stated rejection of claim
24 under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by, or in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Akioka
'797, we observe that the examiner acknowledges that Akioka
'797 does not teach appellants' claimed strain rate (answer,
page 4). Not withstanding that acknowledged process
difference, the examiner maintains that Akioka '797
anticipates or renders obvious the claimed product magnet
since, according to the examiner, the magnet of Akioka '797 is
of the same composition as appellants’
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007