Ex parte USUI et al. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1997-1054                                                        
          Application No. 08/108,543                                                  

               opening said die assembly to remove a thus completely                  
          laminated molded assembly therefrom.                                        
               The references set forth below are relied upon by the                  
          examiner as evidence of obviousness:                                        
          Hanamoto et al.     4,639,341                Jan. 27, 1987                  
          Sheffield et al.    4,653,997                Mar. 31, 1987                  
               All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
           103 as being unpatentable over Hanamoto in view of                        
               We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer                
          for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed              
          by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted               
               We cannot sustain this rejection.                                      
               As correctly pointed out by the appellants, the prior art              
          applied by the examiner contains no teaching or suggestion of               
          the “introducing” step defined by appealed independent claim                
          15.  That is, we find nothing and the examiner points to                    
          nothing in the Hanamoto and Sheffield references which would                
          have suggested somehow modifying the method of Hanamoto in                  
          such a manner as to achieve the here claimed step of                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007