Appeal No. 1997-3029
Application 08/416,526
furthermore, the location of the reaction body relative to the
drive unit. Our analysis applies equally to the suggested
modification of the device shown by Wuchinich or Mishiro.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 and dependent claims 2 to 11 and 13 to 15 over2
Wuchinich or Elbert or Mishiro in view of either Shoh or
McMaster.
As for the other independent claim 16, it is narrower in
scope than the independent claim 1 discussed above.
Therefore, we also do not sustain, for the same rationale as
claim 1, the obviousness rejection of claim 16 and its
dependent claims 17 and 18 over Wuchinich or Elbert or Mishiro
in view of either Shoh or McMaster.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 11 and
13 to 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
2Dependency of claim 4 seems misplaced and needs further
inspection.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007